LIST OF CASES RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF HEAR['NGS AND APPEALS

CV.'cd oi ?.IT/ 4 c'.rLi V:;zy 11.tG-341

Date Nareind locaton of ;c. ont cso

. Tyo o of

. "

May 3, 1984 EcononLI Reguatoiy Adm tcn. oDail rx

.... . HRD-0212 J fu:Ln 6r -cr. I I! i z.-=zay wot.d te T,-r-cad to th Ecorcrrc R'.~s~y A~ 

## ~t ina cc-,=i-n e ii to Sta-icnt of Ctstcns L2~-1i

Tczzo tsn..to s;:z to tho Au-nt 6. 1S1 prcPczsd Rcz .c J Ci:t d to Tcx-o L"-(Ca.oN2. BRO-1457). May 4. 1984 Suffoic County.Washxngton. DC. -

. ___ HFA-=l4. of-cz om er!: zc dz1 -. I1 san* :- St .ffc3Ccunt. wo=fd 'ce
, dzanT-r~tz aa-.d foc-cdo rtatrg to tkA Lcang !!and L,,5agi Ccrricq cf ttS'~t~:zn M~&c Pni Soica May 5.1984 , Office of Specml Cousel, WasirmnTon. DC ---- HRD-O210- MaLnt C=.zo..i. If ar,:l C=.cry w:, ta gaicd to Dos Of-,z of ;-c=l Cm'z; I ccz.=.a-n vh .o S==Lz.. d of OCt;.a i; i by Cron Ccofaa Pcrc-'in Cc n ctrici to ta Dascics-1a 29, 1973 9

______ ____ 

# jPrs c.r- -, Rt re rc= P:36n to.~-Oizs) izu=d to t2--finrrx My91984

- Askansa% Caitornza ot al Wast-ngton, D.C-- KR L0on.1-Cy Otc. U 91 c The f:a.g sl=- wctd be etaxed to to t Tusico Pc '! icn Cci;:ccs-cn Rq;=3SC Rsi2--cs r-,z Ro--=:: j (Ca'- 1.2. HROI-C Aiass. z'':ro D:~zac. rzna. Lec:zn3. 1-ucth Dast. Wh~o t Tozi. a-.4Wuc-t Vrjt3. May 10, 1984 Atantic Pichfie!d Co.,Wasmnton. D.C-- HF1R-31 R

_ M::Con

- i r. : ,dtc"u'- I1g-7t Tna Vomit 22.174 ard-u C-dcr (Ca-c No. GFO-01K) i='ud to Ae-ifc Rze!du GCarupunry wzctld to rmn:Ai m;-C. em fuc o ft pecd of SeZunt-r 1. 1976 DciTci DI---Ta- 31.1576. Do______ Gulf O-t Corp,. Houston Tax

- ---- HPD40lh

... i fu~o tcr .Tvrj.11iu~ Czouciy wic. i to grr*iud to Gulf C1 Ccipmtczn-uitoac=cn wt r3 o Siaiet of OuCt*.na-t cutonod in ss~grv. to to F

.. _i' R-c-" Crld r L Oi t3 to D" L-rn(Cao rHo.

REFUND APPLICATI n RECEIVED

[WVick of .A-y 4 to Vzy 11. 1C34

Date Nar.o of rc!Lrd poc---cfn3frrro f r ! i e -r ap Cca No.

Feb. 17. 198 Pan Amnencan/Farmlznd Inductitc. I(coMay 3, 1984 MAarin CorpJCaltaway Szucood F71 M-ay 7.1984 IMRaron CorpJiComPb P4ptg Con-trcto Inc , Do BaidgeIPenns).an

[FR Doc. 84-14s68 Filed 5-25--4: &45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[TSH-FRL 2594-4; OPTS-41014]



### Fourteenth Report ofthe Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Receipt of Report and Request forComments Regarding Priority Ust of Chemicals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA).
ACTION:Notice.

SUMMARY: The Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) established under 

### section 4(e] ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), transmitted its 

### Fourteenth Report to the Admimstrator ofEPA on May 8,1984. This report, whichrevises and updates the Committee's priority list ofchemicals, adds five designated chemicals to the list forpriority consideration by EPA in 

### the promulgation oftest rulesunder section 4(a) ofthe Act One additional chemical is recommended butnot designated forresponse within 12 months. The new destgnated chemicals

arebisphenol A, 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2- dibromoethyl) cyclohexane, 2- ethylhexanoic acid, isopropyl biphenyl, and diisopropyl biphenyl. 3,4- Dichlorbenzotrifluoride is recommended for testing consideration but not designated forresponse within 12 

### months.The Fourteenth Report is included in this notice. The Agency invites interested persons to submit written comments on the Report, and to attend Focus Meetings to help narrow and focus the issues raised by the ITC's recommendations. Members ofthe public are also invited to Inform EPAif they wish to be notified ofsubsequent public meetings on these chemicals. EPA also notes the removal of22 

### chemicals from the priority list because EPA has responded to the ITC's previous recommendations for testing ofthe chemicals. DATES: Written comments should be 

### submitted by June 28, 1934. Focus Meetings willbe held on June 27 and 28, 1984. ADDRESSES- Send written subimssions 

### to: TSCA Public Information Office (TS793, Office ofPesticides andToxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-108, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Submissions should bear the document control number (OPTS-41014).

The publicrecord supporting this action, including comments, is available forpublic inspection in Rm.E-107 at the address noted above from 8:00 a.m.to 4:00p.m. Monday through Friday. except legal holidays. Focus Meetings willbe held atthe Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Headquarters, 807 Maine Ave., SW.. Washmgton. D.C. Persons planning to attend any one oftheFocus Meetings and/or seeking tobe informed of subsequent publicmeetings onthese chemicals, should notify the TSCA Assistance Office at the address listed below. To insure seating accommodations at the FocusMeeting, persons interested in 

### attending are asked to notifyEPA at least2 weeks ahead ofthe scheduled dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### Edward A. Klein, Director, TSCA Assistance Office (TS-799], Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency,401 M St.,SW., Washington. D.C. 20460, Toll Free: (800- 424-9065), In Washington, D.C.554- 1404), Outside the U&A: (Operator202-554-1404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### EPAhas received the Fourteenth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator.

L Background

Section 4(a) ofTSCA (Pub. L 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 etseq-15 U.S.C. 2601 et 

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices 22389

### 22390 

## ~Federal Re 

### sister 

# I Vol. 

### 49. No

.. 1fl4 I T

### iip qt-1 

### v 

### Mun,90 Iof 

### I M
,, i',.n,,-.-

- - , . . J ' 3 Jtt x * t L U


### seq.) authorizes the Administrator of EPA to promulgate regulations requiring testing ofchemical substances and mixtures in order to develop data relevant to determining the risks that such chemical substances and mixtures may present to health and the environment.

Section 4(e) ofTSCA established an Interagency Testing Committee to make recommendations to the Administrator ofEPA ofchemical substances and mixtures to be given priority consideration in proposing test rules under section 4(a). Section 4(e) directs the Committee to revise its list of recommendations at least every 6 months as necessary. The ITC may "designate" up to 50 substances and mixtures at any one time for priority consideration by the Agency. For such designations, the Agency mustwithn 12 months either initiate rulemaking or issue in the Federal Register its reasons for not doing so. The ITC's Fourteenth Report was received by the Administrator on May 8, 1984, and follows this Notice. The Report designates five substances for priority consideration and response by EPA within 12 months; one additional substance is recommended for testing consideration such that an Agency response within 12 months is not required.
U. Written and Oral Comments and Public Meetings

EPA invites interested persons to submit detailed comments on the ITC's

new recommendations. The Agency is interested in receiving information concerning additional or ongoing health and safety studies on the subject chemicals as well as information relating to the human and environmental exposure to these chemicals. A notice is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register adding the five substances designated in the ITC's Fourteenth Report to the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 716). The section 8(d) rule requires the reporting ofunpublished health and safety studies on the listed chemicals. These five chemicals will also be added to the TSCA section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (40CFR Part 712) published elsewhere in this issue. The section 8(a) rulerequires the reporting ofproduction volume, use, exposure, and release information on the listed chemicals. The nondesignated substance, 3,4-dichlkrobenzotrifluoride, will be separately proposed for addition to the section 8(a) and 8(d) rules.

Focus Meetings will be held to discuss relevant issues pertaining to chemicals and to narrow the range ofissues/ 

### effects which will be the focus ofthe Agency's subsequent activities in responding to the ITC recommendations. The Focus Meetings will be held June 27 and 28,1984, at the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Headquarters, 807 Maine Ave., SW., Washington, D.C. These meetings are intended to supplement and expand upon written comments submitted in response to this notice. The schedule,for the Focus Meetings is as follows: June 27 9:30 a.m.-isopropyl biphenyl and diisopropyl biphenyl, 1:00 p.m.-3,4-- dichlorobenzotrifluonde; June 28, 9:00 a.m.-2-ethylhexanoic acid, 11:00 a.m.- bisphenolA, 2:00 p.m.-1,2-dibromo-4-(1 2-dibromoethyl) cyclohexane.

Persons wishing to attend one or more ofthese meetings should call the TSCA Assistance Office at the toll free number listed above at least 2 weeks in advance.

After consideration ofthe data pertaining to each chemical and any additional information provided in the written comments and the Focus Meetings, EPA will hold public meetings

on each chemical after preliminary staff decisions have been made on the types oftesting that are needed. These meetings will be in the month of September, but separate notice ofthese meetings will not be published at that time. Therefore, anyone wishing to attend these latermeetings should contact EPA after July 30 at the address given for the TSCA Assistance Office in order tobe notified in advance ofthe public meetings.

All written submissions should bear the identifying docket number (OPTS- 

### 41014).

III. Status ofList

In addition to adding the 5 designations and one chemical recommended to the priority list, the ITC's Fourteenth Report notes the removal of22 chemicals from the list since the last ITC report because EPA has responded to the Committee's prior recommendations for testing ofthe chemicals. Subsequent to the ITC's preparation ofits Thirteenth Report, EPA responded to the ITC's recommendations for 22 additional chemicals. The 22 chemicals removed and the dates ofpublication in the Federal Register ofEPA's responses to the ITC for these chemicals are: alkyl epoxides, January 4, 1984 (49 FR 449- 4S6); aniline and bromo- chloro- and/or nitroanilines, January 3, 1984 (49 FR 108- 126); arylphosphates, December 29,1983 (48 FR 57452-57460); bis(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate, November 14, 1983 (48FR 51845-51848); chlorinated benzenes,

mono- and di- January 13,1984 (49FR 1760-1770); chlorinated benzenes, tr-, 

### tetra-, and penta-, January 13, 1984 (49 FR 1760-17701; cyclohexanone, January 3, 1984 (49FR 136-142); dibutyltln bls (isooctyl maleate), November 8,1983 (48 FR 51361-51366); dibutyltln bis(isooctyl mercaptoacetate), November 8, 1983 (48 FR 51361-51366); dibutyltin bis(lauryl mercaptide), November 0, 

### 1983 (48 FR 51361-51366); dibutyltin dilaurate, November 8, 1983 (48FR 51361-51366); 1,2-dichloropropane, January 6,1984 (49 FR 899-908); dimethyltin bis(isooctyl mercaptoacetate) November 8,1983 (48 FR 51361-51366); 1,3-dioxolane, November 14, 1983 (48 FR 51839-51842); glycidol and its derivatives, December 30, J983 (48FR 57562-57571); halogenated alkyl epoxides, December 30, 1983 (48FR 57680-57700); hydroquinone, January 4, 1984 (49 FR 438-449); monobutyltin tris(isooctyl mercaptoacetate), November 8, 1903 (48 FR 51361-51366); monomethyltin tris(isooctyl mercaptoacetate), November 8,1983 (48FR 51361-51360); qumnone, January 4, 1984 (49 FR 456-465. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol, November 15,1983 (48 FR 51971-51976), and tris(2-ethylhexyl) trimellitate, November 14, 1983 (48 FR 51842-51845). The.current list contains 14 designated substances or groups ofsubstances and two recommended substances or groups ofsubstances. (Sec. 4,Pub.L.94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 (15 U.S.C, 2601))

Dated: May 18, 1984. John A. Moore, AssistantAdministratorforPesticides and ToxicSubstances. 

### FOURTEENTH REPORT OF THETSCA INTERAGENCY TESTING COMMITTEE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Summary

Section 4 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA, Pub. L. 94- 469) provides for the testing of chemicals in commerce that may present
an unreasonable risk ofinjury to health
or the environment. It also provides for the establishment ofa Committee, composed ofrepresentatives from eight designated Federal agencies, to recommend chemical substances and mixtures (chemicals) to which the Administrator ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should give priority consideration for the promulgation of testing rules.

Section 4(e)(1)(A) ofTSCA directs the Committee torecommend to the EPA Administrator chemicals to which the Federal Repster / Vol. '49 o.- 104 / Tuesda Ma 

### 90 1084 / hT U



### - I J , r 9 U Uva 

### 22390

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices

Administrator should give priority consideration for the promulgation of testing rules pursuant to section 4(a). The Committee is required to designate these chemicals, from among its recommendations, to which the Administrator should respond within 12 months by either initiating a rulemaking proceeding under section 4(a) or publishing the Administrator's reason for not initiating such a proceeding. Every-6 months, the Committee makes those revisions inthe TSCA section 4(e) Prority Last that it determines to be necessary and transmits them to the EPAAdministrator.

As a result ofits deliberations, the Committee is revising the TSCA section 4(e) Priority lastby the addition ofsix chemicals and is noting the removal of 22, as a result ofresponses by EPA.

The Priority List is divided into two parts: Part A contains those recommended chemicals and groups designated for priority consideration andresponse by the EPAAdministrator within 12 months, and part B contains chemicals and groups that have been recommended forpriority consideration by EPA without being designated for response within 12 months. Although TSCA does not establish a deadline for EPAresponse to nondesignated chemicals andgroups (part B ofthe Prioritylast), the Committee anticipates that the EPA Admimstrator will respond
in a timely manner.

The entries being added to the Priority List are presented, together with the types oftesting recommended, in the following Table 1.

TABLE 1.---ADDmONSTO THE SECTION 4(e)
PRIORITY LIST

Chsemcatlgroup Recommended s=izes

A. Dessgnated for

response wits 12 montsm: S--phenol A(CAS Chenzal Fate: Octanowater par. No. 80-05-7). titon coefsnl; pers:stence. Heath Effects: Chrom= effects i-.

trio effects. Eco ogcal Effects: Acuto end

clmn:c tonaty to fi. aquatc mwrtebrates. end algaa;t-con- centraton.

1,2-D-bromo-4-(1.2- Cerncal Fate: Water Eo!ub-'-rr

ctrooett*4) cltanotfwale padtrorr coatficyfohexarm (CAS ment; so nobiy; pumstence. No. 3322-93-8). Health Effects: Toacor inetic studsperm norphotugy and ag.t cytoogy aerTmton chons tax- "ct studes uidudnrg oncogen3. city. Eco~og.cal Effects: Acte end

chron: ciy to fR. sq=tc

wer ebraim and algae blsmncentretimn TABLE 1.-ADoDmONS TOTHE SECTtOj 4(e)
PRIORITY LiST--Continued

Chcrs-.Jgo.p R c n:r'z.-d stsL _:s

2.ihq2ierc actd Hcnfh Etlsct-. Cuxnt: &,---t L-.

(CAS fNo, 149-57- ctu-,3 cc-ssV s),

tc~loo11n chz=rIcd Fes~a Wai-irz e 2j (CAS No. 2,3413- carctfw- F~f:tn CCC5- 78-2). ct sr:Jrel rm rt d mrtc;1 Hcf h Effs: 01==

(CAS NO6SO03- F ec.-" en r~*,' cr SO-i) eand V5±1=1 clists EccDEn rg'w--- A ac-d

cssns o iz, '.n S uyt-r e ad Th enThoas

. Mgnes, M embe .a Renommer ed

- rn d-.arcd fcr raccnshao w rsn 12

3.4- Crecnr.d F-,!: Wzl:r e~

Ddsvciscn-s Wamlfwwstsr rat1Zn 

## ~ctc! (rnmde (CASna. Poctn Ae enc HcCh ERc. TornsMem V&:'~

kcr e!!ccd ch=c's c~ltsts c-2--o

A~Ec Stem, Altern ScAto xte dic

s t=--,/ to "%hWxWsctraltss ard epaei hzsen

TSCA Interagency Testing Committee Statutory .Wember Agencies andTher Representatives
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality

Thomas H. Magness, III, Member GeorgeIV. Schlossnagle, Alternate (1) 

### DepartmentofCommerce

Bernard Greifer, Member and Vice



### Chairperson EnvironmentalProtection Agency Carl R. Morris, Member ArthurM. Stern,Alternate NationalCancer Institnte izabeth K.Weisburger, Member and Chairperson Richard Adamson, Alternate 

### National InstituteofEnvironmental HealthSciences 

### Dorothy Canter, Member National Institute for Occupational Safet andu ealth Rodger L Tatken, Member Sanford S. Leffngwell, Alternate (2) National ScienceFoundation 

### Winston C.Nottingham, Member Occupational Safety andHealth Administration Ralph Yadaiken, Member Martin Brown, Alternate (3)
LiaisonAgencies'andTheir Representatives ConsumerProduct Safety Commission Arthur Gregory Lakshnu Mishra DepartmentofAgriculture

Homer E.Fairchild Richard MA. Parry,Jr. Department of

Defense Arthur H.McCreesh (4) Patnck A.Truman (5) Departmentof theInterior Vyto A. Adomaitis David R. Rosenberger FoodandDrug Admimstration Arnold Borsetti Allen H.Hein NationalTaoxicologyProgram

Dorothy Canter
CommitteeStaff Alartin Greif,Executive Secretary

Norma Williams, ITCCoordinator SupportStaff

Alan Carpien-Office ofthe General

Counsel, EPA Stephen Ells-Office ofToxi

Substances, EPA Vera W. Hudson-Mational Library of

Medicine
Notes

(1) Dr.Schlossnagle was appointed on November 17.1933.

(2)Dr.Leffngwell was appointed on October27.1933.

(3)

### Dr.Brovn was appointed onFebruary 10,1234.

(4)Dr.McCreesh died suddenly on March 

### (5) CommanderTruman wasappointed on January ,19-.

The Committee acknowledges and is grateful for the assistance and support given to it by the staffs ofCRCS, Inc., and Dynamac Corporation (technical support prime and subcontractors) and personnel ofthe EPA Office ofTomc Substances. Chapter 1-Introduction

1.1 Bad round. TheTSCA Interagency Testing Committee (Committee)was established under section 4(e) of the Toxic Substances ControlAct of1976 (TSCA, Public Law 94-469). The specific mandate ofthe Committee is to recommend to the Administrator oftheU.. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemical substances and mixtures in commerce that shouldbe given priority consideration for thepromulgation of testing rules to determine theirpotential hazard to human health and/or the environment. TSCA specifies that the Committee's recommendations shallbe in 

### the form ofa Priority List, which is to be published in 

### the Federal Register. The Committee is directed by section 4(e)(1)(A) ofTSCA to designate those cheucals on the Priority listto which the EPA Administrator shouldrespond vithin 12 months by either initiating a rulemaking proceeding under section 4(a) or publishing the Administrator's

reason fornot initiating such a 22391

### Federal Reister / Vol. 49. No. 104 / Tuetqsdy. Mav 90 IR 

### I NTn , ',.oa

- -- 5 ~ -'--J--,~--~ 7

.. ttflJ,~o proceeding. There is no statutory time limit for EPA response regarding chemicals which ITChas recommended, but not designated forresponse within 12 months.

Every 6 months, the Committee makes those revisions m the section 4(e) Priority List that it determines to be necessary and transmits them to the EPA Administrator.

The Committee is comprised of representatives from eight statutory member agencies, five liaison agencies, and one national program. The specific representatives and their affiliations are named in the front of this report. The Committee's chemical review procedures and prior recommendations

are described inprevious reports (Refs. 1 through 13).

1.2 Committee's previousreports. Thirteen previous reports to the EPA Administrator have been issued by the Committee and published m the Federal Register (Refs. 1 through 13). Seventy- three entries (chemicals and groups of chemicals) were recommended for priority consideration by the EPA Administrator and designated for response within 12 months. In addition, two groups were recommended without being so designated. Removal offorty- three entries was noted m the previous reports.

1.3 Committee'sacti'ities during this reporting period. Between October 1, 1983 and March 31, 1984 the Committee continued to review chemicals from its fourth scoring exercise and began to review chemicals from its fifth scoring exercise.

The Committee contacted more than 100 chemical manufacturers and trade associations to request information that would be ofvalue in its deliberations. Fifty-four ofthose contacted provided unpublished information on current production, exposure, uses, and effects ofchemicals under study by the Committee.

During this reporting period, the Committee evaluated 73 chemicals for priority consideration. Six chemicals


### were added to the section 4(e) Priority List, and 25 were deferred indefinitely. The remaining chemicals are still under study.

1.4 The TSCA section4(e)Priority List.Section 4(e)(1) (B) ofTSCA directs the Committee to: " * * make such 

### revisions in the [priority] list as it determines to be necessary and * * * 

### transmit them to the Administrator together with the Committee's reasons for the revisions." Under this authority, the Committee is revising the Priority List by adding six chemicals: bisphenol A; 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2-dibromoethyl) cyclohexane; 3,4- dichlorobenzotrifluoride; diisopropyl biphenyl; 2-ethylhexanoic acid; and isopropyl biphenyl. Five ofthese chemicals are designated for response within 12 months. The sixth, 3,4- dichlorobenzotrifluonde, is recommended, but not designated for response within 12 months. The testing recommended for these chemicals and the rationales for the recommendations
are presented in 

### Chapter 2 ofthis report.

Twenty-two chemicals andgroups of chemicals are being removed from the Priority List because the EPA Administrator has responded to the Committee's prior recommendations for testing them. They are: Alkyl epoxides Aniline and bromo- chloro- and/or

nitroanilines Aryl phosphates Bis(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate Chlorinated benzenes, mono- and diChlorinated benzenes, tri- tetra- and penta- Cyclohexanone Dibutyltin bistisooctyl maleate) Dibutyltin bis(isooctyl mercaptoacetate) Dibutyltin bis(lauryl mercaptide) Dibutyltin dilaurate 1.2-Dichloropropane Dimethyltinbis(isooctyl mercaptoacetate) 1,3-Dioxolane Glycidol and its derivatives Halogenated alkyl epoxides Hydroquinone Monobutyltin tris (isooctyl mercaptoacetate) Monomethyltin tris (isooctyl mercaptoacetate) Quinone 4-(1,1,3.3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenol Tris(2-ethylhexyl) trimellitate

With the six recommendations and 22 removals noted in this report, 16 entries

now appear on the section 4(e) Priority List. The Priority List is divided In the following Table 2 into two parts; namely, Table 2A, Chemicals and Groups ofChemicals Designated for Response Within 12 Months, and Table 2B, Other Recommended Chemicals and Groups.

TABLE 2.-THE TSCA SECTION 4(e) Priority List-May 1984

Entry Date of desgnation

2A. Chemical and Groupo of Chem.cala oeOgnatd for Respone Within 12 Montha

1.Bisphenol A

................... . May 1984, 2. 2-(2.Butoxyethoxy)ethyI acetate

..... Nov. 19083, 3. Calcium naphthenate

................... .May 1983. 4. Cobalt naphthenato

......................... Do, 5. 1.2-Dibromo-4-(l,2d;bromootfrt) May 1984. cyclohexane. 6. Disopropyrl Iaphenyl

............. Do. 7. Ethylene bis(oxyethyleno) diace- Nov. 1903, tare. 8.2-Ethylhexanoc acid_.....

...... May 1984, 9. 1.2.3.4.7,7.-Hexachloronorborna- Nov

, 183. deno. 10. Isopropyl bphenyt....... May 1984. 11.Lead naphthenato

............................. May 1983. 12. Methylolurea

. ..... DO 13. Oloytemno Y......No 1983. 14. 2-Phcnoxyeihanot

. May 1983.

Date of Entry rocommondateon

28. Other Recommended Chem:cata and Grotpa of Chemicals

1.Cabotfuran Intermndiates

. . ........No,. 1982. 2. 3.4-Dichlorobnzotrlfluorido

....... May 1984,

To date, 65 chemicals and groups of chemicals have been removed from the Priority List. The cumulative list is presented in the following Table 3.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

### 22392

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, g194 1 Notices

m. -4 4 -4

4- r =

CD r-U M 

### Co cCn

I " u I LA 4 CD tr- tt 1 " II r-%D I

Co C4 'T n ut C 

### Lnr TtnL

- wA z z 0:AW

aar2 C L

I 0 LA 0

C

..- 4
W 1 -4 V 00- (

U) 4J 0 LA0 -4-. 4

-- ", C '- La E 0 J0 'D 0 4 V

. L

I= )O C " E C &" 2 0Q.*~ 0 0 C C0 00 EJEOr= -'-I44>-4' C -4 -2-

0 CI-4 -4Cr CC C
I 

## ~ < -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4

CA -C %.,T 0
=

C1
C CCU~'4J >j > 3.3 C mm0000000000 

### 3P3PDaz C 

### =zz 0-3

0%0 %o

LA LA Ln Ln LA C'4C'I I
N Ir-4o



### r-r-r, i L r- %DO00
r-oaCo fn fn-4 LAnLA t lIt Lna LAn

LANCOLRALA • -4"

C-4 Ioto

0 r-- 0t 000

LA

-41

R7. -4 Ln
Iw 001

0,. %.r.. Ck ru- 3- ' rCo t
r-40

N -4

w w , w w z C&w w=r,

-

0 a3

0-.I ,J •

-, L JCDe P r .,. - 43

-4

0 L 0. C a) ' O J L

- Q a) n La (a 

### a)-4 W-2 U)

. -I--0

-- 4 j> a) i 0 m.C -.4 >1m 3 a C C = t"~-4

=. - : )a M 4OJ UJU-4

, 1.3 r-4n N N a m-4 Wo,= >1 VCI C 4LA,LA W 0 Q 4-4 -4 a) a I M (13
(a m

_ Ca La N .al>1 0 '0 V J O 0C

DaC1 .- 4j>i-VO ) 0 (000 (

=.- 4 >4 a CC I C

- CC La 0.v -4C I a) 0 -4 1-.4-4 0 '4> O -4 LAL C $4 -.4 La La-4 -4 N .C ::4~0 0 0 0 La 0 0.C

4MMM=M )U U L) u

-4-4-4-444-4

- -4 1-4N4N 

### 22393

La

.>1

o -4 E L 0 0. -4
=) La

0 0o

Oj 0

-IL4 -4 -4

-4 .,,

COo > LA

0
C)

0 -4

jJ

0 4
V-I

0

EO

0 >

4J

0 0

C_1

.C0 a)

E0La 0 2239

### Federal Register / Vol.-49,-No. 104 / Tuesday. May 29. 1984 

### / Nntices

-4 a% o gr 4 '

Sr-4 -4

"-4 1-4 M L CO -4

> ,-.4 >1 -4a-4 C > >

:;DC 00

-trLA~ a% cm tDr--4 CLA%4 "W -4 00 CD mA

I I~r n I IV - . N r14-4 -M -4 C14r- -4 1 C=)k

00 0 -4~ cmLnr 

## ~* M -4 LA Ln

D lu cz U n

U)

>1>4 13 4ji

0

Q) (1--4 a C0 0

. 4

0 C,

-- --4

01 u0 'J 0

0 z

0 Cn -4 LA

m

CL.

4j 0 0 0 U)

-C

IJ4.1

-4 4~J

(I : CO a

CO a

0 C * Z 2

%0

-4 -4

I- Iq

CO 0

S" 41

-4 -4

Aj-4 4
C>1 0

W

4J 4J1

Ei1U -4

.a-I'a- -w

)

>U

0 "- 04 0
0 '-j (a ) 0 ( J
C:>i U) 41 (-.,- >4

, z. (I Q


### woem 0 Eq I. ,,!O r
.

C: w C~ M vj- -4>i-M 34 -4 n a~C Q)I Y0(a 0 -0 L'A C -04 >ojo. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -C a) -I C. X -4 -- ,-4 CU 0 0 0 SA C0 '-4 >, CO 0 0 MO

-- 0 C -4 -4 0 -- >I.C 0

--4 j 0 5 1:;

- .C .C -" I .M = 4 0 W L 0 

### 'a 0 0 W M

- =C I .J 00w I >40 S 0 0 ma m 'a 0 " 0) E r m .C :3 1-4 >, -4 x x x

_ - *-4 4.J -4 0

- iV (10 00 d

CN CN m4mmmrnmM ..- rT 

### 22394

CO CAOCO-40

-4

fu IA 00

M

M
C1 0-4

oI C)

%D

ON r- 03

.I

r. N

m .- 4 C 0

-4 -4

,

.,,4 q7- 0

- a ., C ,,N 1-4 mnC) m m N N

> >14.1 >10 0 )L 0 (ao')a 0) CD4) 0

z M 0 ='- ,-. m' 0 0,..

o Mo 0- M N ,- ,Or- -4 L--o 0 mnc4

nm mnr-tnrM C a N N r. r-4Mm m r- r-~ w tn N tnN tn ) tnt
-

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1934 / Notices

m C~ r4

C ','- -4 .- 0 >
= = 0 T 0

r .n- 2w Z V

4J C

0

-,4
0

-- 4 L 0

C 0

U-) 0

Cl)

E

>, -4



### 'U

0 0

C 0a

0- C-

-4 j

0 j a)LI

01 0 0C) -! >3>

0 >01 C1 C 0-C -3-a)U)

=0 -Ti IT = 2:

-V* Ln %D r- w m 

### a% a%%

- a '

-4 -4 -4 -4

LA 

## ~c cv 4,r -4

C a> 0UC >

z 00 n0



### o m ul nL (1 *5o , '
o ', o ,.4

I O I ID I

o a% C'4 .- 4

- -4 o l Om I r-

rn enqT D C

o r-tr=Ln -4

rn aL LA LA-Tt

w w C C.4 W :wI

ad IZlI.I w:I N

a% -s a a%a% a%-

-4 4 -14 fL ,-- Ol,-- -4

> 0 >, >, > > 00 r 00 

### z 0= : z z

'.0r 'JL LAO r.,Lt
%o c4 n o o. t- ton

Ln %D(n ) C) 0%1- I I I I I I I

Ln %n c-4 rn t. bC' O 4

aO CO D 1

0 MlOD0 0 fn-tC LA %.0 n m CD a%

-- 4 Ln LA-'J c, m.7t

,-4i -4 °-,4

-- 4 >, U) > >.1 4.J ,- CL3. > JJ >, :L I

U 0 C -0 0 0 0 

## a)

. 0 U) : > U C a) CL U) -ad a ) a) C
•-,U)-- ) 0 , C. -i-- U) a0 ) U) A" 5 a) U),L 0>-4

. . -JLJ. 0 '.0 f .l,)

-- C.,

-4 Lj 4j (0 D to-- D" -Wa)0" =J" ," > 0- 0 '' C, LA 0 -- C0j Ix 4AI.L1 43 -4C 4J U) >1 a)LIOCa) aC) = E

.. 0

- , .Ca,,-.U. Co o

- .-- ) o > ,E- , o

. -4La-4 -4 4JCOC

- C I I a)a).=C 0>1

Ai 0-0 0)

- 

### a) 0 E-0 

### 0 -=
-4L >--C 1 0a
fnI - -- 4 4-Si '.-A


### = 0 W 04CO 

### D Pl-4 -4 a-4 C 1 1 rC4 .0L E W 0 ('0 0 C

- -4 Q) -T .C- I

00 a 0 a C r >4-. C =-. 0 :3

- 2 U) C E C SE4J a)

- La ( -t '-C4 -4 0 0

.. 4 .0 > 1 L, ia-LLa

-4 c,4 PltLn .C rLA Ln LAtLL Ln cato -4J " mlR LAL'. in'. '.0o D % 

### 22395

'.00 am C)

--4 C,; 1

r- co 0 C

D ,-4 CC CO *• M I I I I

I m 0-" C COI

CO r-. %DCO <D C at

In I
a'

. LA

rn

to

n

4J

(0

>1

OU) %D

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday. May 29. 1984 / Notices

References

(1)Initial Report to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, October 1, 1977. Published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, October 12, 1977, 42 FR 55026- 55080. Corrections published in the Federal Register ofNovember 11, 1977,42 FR 58777- 58778. The report and supporting dossiers

were also published by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 560-10-78/001, January 1978.

(2) Second Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, April 1978. Published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, April 19,1978,43 FR 16684- 16688. The report and supporting dossiers
were also published by the Environmental Protection Agency,EPA 560-10-78/002, July 

### 1978.

(3)

Third Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to theAdministrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, October 1978. Published in the Federal Register of Monday, October 10,1978,43 FR 50830-50835, The report and supporting dossiers were also published by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 560-10-79/001, January 1979.

(4)Fourth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, April 1979. Published in the Federal Register ofFriday, June 1, 1979,44 FR31860-31889.

(5)Fifth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to theAdministrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, November 1979. Published in the Federal Register of Friday, December 7 1979, 44FR 70564-70874.

(6) Sixth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, April 1980, Published in the Federal Registerof Wednesday, May 28,1980, 45 FR 35897-35910.

(7)Seventh Report of theTSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, October 1980. Published in the Federal Register ofTuesday, November 25. 1980,45 FR 78432-78446.

(8) Eighth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to theAdministrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, April 1981. Published in the Federal Register ofFriday, May 22,1981, 46 FR 28138-28144.

(9) Ninth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Admnistrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, October 1981. Published inthe'Federal Register of Friday, February 5,1982,47 FR 545-5463.

(10) Tenth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Admmistratok, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee. April 1982. Published in the Federal Register ofTuesday, May 25, 1982, 47 FR 22585-22590.

(11) Eleventh Report oftheTSCA Interagency Testing Committee tothe Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, October'1982. Published in the Federal Register ofFriday, December 3,1982, 47 FR 54825-54644.

(12) Twelfth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, May 1983. Published in the Federal Register ofWednesday, June 1, 1983, 48 FR 24443-24452.

(13)Thirteenth Report ofthe TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator,

, nvironmental Protection Agency. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, November 1983. Published in the Federal Register ofWednesday, December 14,1983, 48 FR55674-55684. Chapter 2-Recommendations of the Committee

2.1 Chemicalsrecommended for priority consideration by the EPA Administrator. As provided by section 4(e)(1)(B) ofTSCA, the Committee is adding the following chemical substances to the section 4(e) Priority ListL bisphenol A; 1,2-dibromo-4-(1, 2- 

### dibromoethyl) cyclohexane; 3,4- dichlorobenzotrifluonde; diisopropyl biphenyl; 2-ethylhexanoic acid; and isopropyl biphenyl. The recommendation ofthese chemicals is being made after considering the factors identified in section 4[e)(1)(A] and other available relevant inforipation, as well

as the professional judgment of Committee members.

The five recommendations designated forresponse by the EPA Administrator within 12 months and supporting rationales are presented in section 2.2 of tlus report. Section 2.3 contains one recommendation with no designated time limit for response by the EPA Administrator.

2.2 Chemicalsdesignated for
responsewithin 12 months with supportingrationales.

2.2a BisphenolA. 

### Summaryof recommended studies.It is recommended that bisphenol A be tested for the following:

A. Chemical Fate: Octanol/water partition coefficient Persistence B. Health Effects: Chronic effects including oncogenicity Reproductive effects C. Ecological Effects: Acute and chronic toxicity offish,

aquatic invertebrates, and algae Bioconcentration
Physical andChemicalInformation
CAS Number, 80-05-7 Synonyms: 4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol 2,2-Bis (phydroxyphenyl) propane Phenol,.44'-(l-methylethylidene)bis- 

### (9 CI) Structural Formula:

Empirical Formula: CaH 10O 5 . Molecular Weight: 228. Melting Point: 153° C (crude): 155-157 ° C (purified).

Boiling Point: 220° C at 4 mmHg. Vapor Pressure: 0.2 mmHg at 170' C Specific Gravity: 1.195 (25/25° C). Solubility in Water: Less than 0.1% at 25*C; 0.34% at 83* C; soluble in dilute base.

Solubility in Organic Solvents: Soluble in polar orgamc solvents such as acetone and methanol.

Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 3.84 (estimated; Ref.14, Lyman et al., 1982).

Description ofChemical: White flakes.
Rational forRecommendations
1.Exposureinformation-A. Production/use/disposal. Thle 1982 production volume ofbisphenol A was 479 million pounds (Ref. 4, C&EN, 1903). The annual domestic production capacity as ofJanuary 1, 1983, was estimated to be 930 million pounds (Ref. 26, SRI, 1983).

Bisphenol A is usedprimarily as an intermediate in the production of epoxy and polycarbonate resins. It is also used in the manufacture ofphenoxy resins, corrosion-resistant unsaturated polyester-styrene resins, and polysulfone resins, and as a stabilizer forpolyvinyl chloride resins, as an antioxidant in rubber and plastics, and

as a raw material in the production of tetrabromobisphenol A and other compounds used in the manufacture of flame retardants (Refs. 5, 6, 11, 12 and 0, CEH, 1978, 1979; Kirk-Othmer, 1978, 1980; EPA, 1981).

Since bisphenol A is produced in a closed system, the chances ofexposure during manufacture are expected to be minimal. Itis shipped as prills in 50- pound bags, hopper cars or one ton super sacks. Therefore, the greatest potential for worker exposure Is to the dust during packaging, handling and shipping (Ref. 20, NIOSH, 1983). The National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted during 1981-1983 estimated that 9446 workers were exposed to 

### bisphenol A in the workplace. Estimates for exposure from downstream uses are not yet available (Ref.21, NIOSH, 1984). Based upon its high production volume 

### 22396

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1934 / Notices

and the fact that it-is manufactured and used atmany sites,bisphenol Ais lihely to enter theenvironment in substantial quantities. It can be released in 

### industrial wastewaters during manufactunng, processing and through inadvertent spills.

B. Evidence forexposure.NIOSH has reported levels ofexposure tobisphenol A in 

### the workplace m three Health Hazarad Reports. Concentrations were measured at levels of1.053 mg/m3 in 

### spray operations (Ref.17 NIOSH, 1979], of0.0083 

### mg/m3 m sanding and grinding ofcured epoxy resins (Ref. 18, NIOSH, 1980a], and less than0.04 to 4.49 

## I±gI m3 in epoxy coating operations (Ref. 19, NIOSH, 1980b).

.Bisphenol A has been found in atmospheric fallout near Tokyo at concentrations ranging from0.04 to 0.2 jig/m2 day (Ref. 15, Matsumoto and Hanya, 1980]. In a studyby Matsumoto et al. (Ref.16,1977], bisphenol A was found in

### water samples taken from two rivers receivingindustrial discharges. One sample contained 10-90 ng/L, and 

### the other contained 1-9 pig/L of bisphenol A. It has also been found at a concentration of4.8 mg/L in an effluent 

### priorto treatment at a Soviet plant manufacturing epoxy resins (Ref.9, Friedman, 1980]. Schackleford andKeith (Ref.25,1976) reported findingbisphenol A in 

### an effluent from a chemical manufacturing plant inIndiana but did 

### not quantify the amount.

I. Chemicalfateinformation.-A. Persistence. Like other substituted phenols, bisphenol Ais likely to undergo photolysis or oxidation, butat an undetermined rate. Some biodegradation during wastewater treatment and in 

### receiving waters is also likely.

B.Rational forchemical fate recommendations: Although bisphenol A is not expected tobe highly persistent, the fact thatit has been found in river 

### waters and in effluent discharges demonstrates that biodegradation is not rapid and complete. Testing isneeded to estimate itsremoval during waste treatment and to determine its 

### persistence inreceiving waters.



## m.Biologicaleffects of concern to humanhealth-A.Toxicolanetics (absorption, distribution, andexcretion). A study of the metabolic fate ofan 

### orally administered dose ofradiolabeled bisphenol A in the rat indicated that the major excretory route was 

### through the feces, with 56 percent ofthe radiolabel excreted m this manner (Ref. 13, Knaak and Sullivan, 1966]. Excretion through the urine accounted for 28 

### percent of the dose and was primarily as
a glucuromde. No radiolabel could be detected in rc:piratory CO:, and r.:e remained in 

### the body after3 dal 3.

B.

Autagemc.r.B sp:nol A wa3not found tobe mutagenic w;hcn tcz :d i 

### Salmonellatyphimurum U as TA1535, TA-1537 TA-g8, cnd TA-10, v.

### th and without metabolic acaiat~on (Onn, 1979, cited in Ref. 8,EPA, 19:1}. these negative results were also obtained by the NTP (Ref. 24,1984a). The chemical

was also negative forinducing sisterchromatid exchanges and chromosamal aberrations in Chinese Hamster ovary cells in 

### cluture. Zavadskii and Khovanova (1975 cited inRef.8, EPA, 1981] reported that bisphenol A produced no effects on somatic cells of Drosophila melanogaster. C. Short-term(acute)effccts.The oral L)o inrats, mice, and rabbits was reported to be 3.25, 2.5 and 2.23 g/kg, respectively (Ref. 1, AIHA, 1967).

D. Long-term(subchronzc/chronic) effects. Carcmnopenucitv. A carcinogenesis bioassay was conducted in 

### which bisphenol A was fed at levels of1,000 or 2,000 ppm to groups ofSO rats ofeither sex, atlevels of1,000 or 5,000 ppm togroups of50male mice, and at levels of5,000 or 10,000 ppm to groups of 50 female mice for103 weelx. It was concluded that,under the conditions of the bioassay, "there was no convincing evidence that bisphenol Awas carcinogenic forrats ormice," (Ref.22, NTP 1982]

E. Teratogenicity andreproductive effects. In a teratogenicity study by Hardin et al., (Ref.10, 1981), 

### offspring from rats receiving intraperitoneal doses of85 and 125 mg/kg on days 1through 15 ofgestation showed significantly reduced mean fetal body weghts and crown-lo-rump lengths. The mean number ofimplants and number oflive fetuses per litterwere also reducei in the high-dose rats. Inboth groups,
numerous instances ofenlarged cerebral ventricles and retarded skeletal ossification were seen; one case of hydroxephalus occurred in the lush-dose groun.Because ofthe limited number of litters, further testing in rats ardmice is being conducted (Ref.24, NTP 

### 1924bl. In the NTP study, the animals are dosed during the post-implantation poriod while inHardins study they were do.zed earlier in 

### the cycle, i.e. during the preand post-implantation period.

Bisphenol A has been reported to produced estrogenic effects (Ref.2, Bitman and Cecil, 1970]. Bond et al. (Ref. 3. 1980] also tested ovarictomized rats forestrogenic effects and an increase in uterine water was observed athigher doses.

F.Rational forhealthqff,ct, recommendations.Concern exists regarding the potential carcinogenicity ofbsphenol A by the inhalation route of administration, since that is the mare route ofhuman exposure. Consequentlv, it is recommended that bisphenol A be tested for chrornc toxacith Lclud:n oncogemcity bythe inhalation route. Furthermore, because offhe estrogenic activity, it should also be tested for reproductive effects.

IV.Ecologicaleffects of concern-A. Toxicitvy The 98-hourLCG,_ for sheepshead minnow, tested under flowthrough condtions, was 7.5 mgL (Ref.7 Dow. 1932).

B.Bioconcentration. No test data

were found. Based upon an estimated log Pof3.84. the expected bioconcentration factor (BCF), using the model ofVeith et al. (Ref. 28,1979). is 365.

C.Rationale forecological effects recommendations. Based upon the large production volume, environmental releases frommanufacturers and processors are likely to occur. The one acute toxicity test on the sheepshead nunno, is inadequate to predict the acute and chromc effects on aquatic organisms. Because ofthe large exposure potential, tests with both freshwater and estuarne orgamsms are recommended. Acute and chrome toxicity tests with several species of fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae shouldbe performed. Based upon the estimatedBCF of366, a test with fish shouldbe performed to quantify bioconcentration.
References

(1)

AIHA. 1857. AmericanIndustrial 

### Hygiene Ac-soation.Bisphonol A.Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.J.23t3]301-394.

(2jBitman J.CecilH. C. 1970.Estrogenic 

### actitity ofDDTanalogs and po!vchl:zL3ted biphenvls. J. Agnrc Food Chem. ilf561.1io3- 1112.



### (3] Bond G. P,McGinras P.

. Chaevar r. 

### L.Hams S.J.Plotmck

### HL B.t Niecre.cr R.W., 199.Reproductive effcts cfbisphenol 

### A. Paper No. C9presented atthe Society of Toxtcolcgy s I5hAnnual Meeting. Washington. DC. March 9-13. 19Z3 (Abstract).

t4) C&EN 

### IT3. Chemical and Enine-ermg News. Production by theU.S. Chemical Industry.January 13,1 M3. p. 31.

(5) CEH. 

### 1978. Chemical Economics Handhoo%!i 

### Stanford Rezaarch Institute. Menlo Par, CA:

### SP InternationaL Seceons 

### 539 r:31A

### anr1619E030A.

(6] CEH.1979. Chemical Economics HandbooL. Stanford Research Institute. Menlo Par'

, CA: SRIInternational. Section 5.11C.

(7)

Daiw. 1932.Dow Chemical Co. Data submitted to ITC.Juna25.193.

(8) EPA. 1931. Chemical Hazard Information Profile. Draft Report. Bisphenol A.September 

### 18.1931. Washington. DC.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 22397

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday. May 29. 1984 / Notices

(9) Friedman, R. A. 1980. Improvement of biochemical purification ofwaste-water from manufacture ofbisphenol A resins. Khum. Tektronol. Vody 2(2):175-177.

(10) Hardin B. D., Bond G. P., Sikov M. R., Andrew F.D., Beliles R. D., Niemeier R. W. 1981. Testing ofselected workplace chemicals for teratogenic potential. Scand.J. Environ. Health 7(4):66-75.

(11) Kirk-Othmer. 1978. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed.Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley &Sons. p. 90.

(12) Kirk-Othmer. 1980. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed. Vol. 9. New York: John Wiley &Sons. pp. 267. 274.

(13) Knaak J.B., Sullivan L 1.196. Metabolism ofbisphenol A m therat. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 8:175-184.

(14) Lyman W. J., Reehl W.F., Rosenblatt D. H. 1982. Handbook ofChemical Property Estimation Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. p. 14.

(15) Matsumoto G., Hanya T. 1980. Organic constituents in atmospheric fallout in the Tokyo area. Atmos. Environ. 14:1409-1419.

(16) Matsumoto G., Ishiwatan, R., Hanya T. 1977 Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric identification ofphenols and aromatic acids in river waters. Water Res. 11(8):693-698. (Abstract)

(17) NIOSH. 1979. Health Hazard Evaluation Report, Results No. 79-7-639, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(18) NIOSH. 1980a. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-165-907, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(19) NIOSH. 1980b. Health Hazard Evaluation Report No. 80-154-1027, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(20) NIOSH. 1983. Control Technology Assessment for Chemical Process Unit Operations. Preliminary Survey Report of USS Chemicals. Haverhill, Ohio, p. 19.NTIS PB83-187492. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(21) NIOSH. 1984. National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted dtring 1981-83. Personal communication. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(22) NTP. 1982. National Toxicology Program. Carcinogenesis Program. Bioassay ofbisphenol A. Technical Report No. 215.

(23) NTP. 1984a. NTP Results Reports and Status Information on all NTP Chemicals, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park. NC.

(24) NTP. 1984b. National Toxicology Program. Personal communication from Carole Kimmel, National Center for Toxicologic Research, Jefferson, AR.



### 2.2.b 1,2-Dibromo-4-(,2- DibromoethylCyclohexane.

Summaryofrecommended studies.It is recommended that 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2- dibromoethyl)cyclohexane (DBDBECH) be tested for the following:

A. Chemical Fate: Water solubility Octanol/water partition coefficient Soil mobility 

### Persistence B.Health Effects: Toxicokinetic studies Subchromc studies including sperm morphology and vaginal cytology evaluation Chromc toxicity studies including

oncogenscity C.Ecological Effects: Acute and chromc toxicity to fish,

aquatic invertebrates, and algae Bioconcentration PhysicalandChemicalInformation

CAS Number: 3322-93-8. Synonym: Vinylcyclohexene tetrabromide Cyclohexane, 1,2-dibromo-4-(1,2-

dibromoethyl) (9 CI) Structural Formula:


## Br

Empirical Formula: CsH 2

### Br 4

### . Molecular Weight: 428. Melting Point: 72-73*C. Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient: 4.7 (estimated; Ref. 8,Lyman et al., 1982).

Description of Chenucal: Solid.
Rationale forRecommendations I. Exposurernf9rmation-A. Prodiction/use/disposal. Production of DBDBECH was reported to be 600,000 pounds m 1982 and less than 1 million pounds in 

### 1983 

### (Refs. 12 and 13,1983, 1984). The TSCA Inventory (public portion) reported the 1977production to be between and 10 million pounds (Ref. 5, EPA, 1983).The compound is used as a flame retardant in 

### construction materials, m high-impact plastic parts of appliances, and in 

### electric cable coatings (Refs. 3 and 12, Chemtromcs, 1982; Saytech, 1983). Because itis an effedtive flame retardant with high thermal stability (Ref.-6, Green and Versnel, 1974), the demand for the compound is expected to increase with the current improvement in 

### thehousing and construction industry (Ref. 12, Saytech, 1983).

B. Evidence forexposure.There is no information documenting the presence of DBDBECH in the aquatic environment. Releases from production and use are expected toresult in both human and environmental exposure.

II.Chemicalfate information-A. Transport. Based on an estimated water solubility of.3 mg/L, transport of DBDBECH by water is likely.Based on an estimated log P of4.7 some absorption to soil and suspended solids

m water will also occur.

B.Persistence. No information was found. C.Rationale forchemical fate recommendations. Chemical fate tests
are needed to determine the mobility and persistence ofDBDBECH under environmental conditions.

Il1. Biologicaleffects ofconcernto humanhealth-A.Summary.DBDBECH
was shown to be negative in the Salmonellaassay in 

### strains TA98, TA1O0, TA1535, and TA1537 with and withoutmetabolic activation (Ref,10, NTP 1984). In vitro cytogenetc and

mouse lymphoma tests are planned by NTP (Ref.10, NTP 1984). No other information on the biological effects of DBDBECH was found.

B.Rationale forhealtheffects recommendations. DBDBECH is structurally related to ethylene dibromide, which is a known carcinogen that has also been shown toproduce reproductive abnormalities in several species (Refs. 1,4, 

### and 11, Amir et al., 1983; Courtens et al., 1980: Sastry and Mukherjee, 1980). Since no data on the health effects ofDBDBECH were found, toxucokmetic and subchronic studies, including sperm morphology and vaginal cytology evaluation are recommetided. If it is determined that there is substantial exposure to this compound, then chronic toxicity studies, including oncogenicity,

are recommended.

IV.Ecologicaleffects of concern-A. Toxicity,No data were found on the aquatic toxicity ofDBDBECH. A similar compound, 1,2-dichloro-4- {1,2,dichloroethyl)cyclohexane, adversely affected rainbow trout and bluegills after onehour ofexposure at 5 mg/L (Ref. 2, Applegate et al., 1957).

B.Bioconcentration. Based on an estimated log P of4.7, aquatic organisms

are likelyto bioconcentrate DBDBECH. Using the equation of Veith et al. (Ref. 14, 1979), the bioconcentration factor Is estimated to be 2000.

C.Rationale forecological effects recommendations. Based on the production and uses ofDBDBECH, releases to the aquatic environment are likely.Although no data were found, DBDBECHmay be highly toxic to aquatic organisms and may bioconcentrate substantially.Testing is needed to determine the acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms and to quantify the bioconcentration potential.
References

(1) AmirD., Gledhill B. L., Garner D.L. Nicolle J. C., TadmorA.1983. Spermlogenio, epididymal, and spermatozoal damage induced by a peritesticular Injection of ethylene dibromide to rams.Anim, Reprod. Sc. 6(1):35-50.

(2) Applegate V.C., Howell J. H., Hall A.E., Jr.1957. Toxicity of4,340 chemicals to larval 

### 22398

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 19S4 / Notices 2239

lampreys and fishes. Special Scientific -Report-Fisheries Vol.207. p.49. Washington, DC:U.S. Dept. ofthe Interor.

(3] Chemtromcs. 1932. Information cn 1,2- dibromo-4-(1,2-dibromoethyl]cyclohexane provided by J. F. Ss.hulheis, Chemtromcs Inc. November 5,1982.

(4)Courtens J.L.,Amir D, Durand J.190. Abnormal spermiogenesis m bulls treated with ethylene dibrormde: and ultra-structural and ultra-cytochemical study.J.Ultrastruct. Res. 71(1).103-115.

(5)EPA. 1983.Environmental Protection Agency.TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (publicportion). Washington. DCEnvironmental Protection Agency.

(6) Green J., Versnel J.1974.Flame retarding plastics with halogen-contaimn compounds. J. Fire Flammability/Fire Retard. Chem. Suppl. -185-204.

(7)IARC. 1977. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Vol. 15,pp. 195-252-.

(8)

Lyman W. J.,Reehl W.F., Rosenblatt D. H. 1932. Handbook ofChemical Property EstimationMethods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Chapter 2.

(9)NTP. 1232. National Toxicology Program. Carcmogenesis bioassay of 1,2- dibromoethane (CAS No. 108-93-4) mrats andB6CF1 mice (inhalation study). Technical Report No. 210.

(10) NTP. 1934. National Toxicology Program. Current status ofchemicals inPIRs
325-327. Memorandum to the Executive Secretary, ITC.December 27,1932.

(11) Sastry M. S., Mukherjee D. P 19S0. Effect ofdietary ethylene dibromide on ram
semen. Indian ]. 

### Anan. Health 19(1):71-73.

(12)Saytech. 1933. Information on 1,2- dibromo4-{1.2-dibromoethyljcyclohexeie provided by L.Makfinsky, Saytech Inc. August 31,1933.

(13) Saytech. 19S4. Information on 1,2- dibromo-4-(1,2-dibromoethyl)cyclohexane provided by L Makflinsky, Sayterh Inc. 

### January 25,1934.

(14] Vieth G. D., DeFoeD. L.,Bergstedt B. V. 1979.Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor ofchemicals in fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36:1040-1048.

2.2.c 2-Ethyihexanoic Acid (9 CI). Summaryofrecommendedstudies.It isrecommended that 2-ethylhexanoic acid be tested for the following:

Health Effects: Chronic effects including oncogemcity. Physical andChemical Information
CAS Number. 149-57-5. SYNONYMS: Butylethylacetic acid alpha-Ethylcaproic acid Structural Formula:


### CH3 

### 1 ;H 2 0

H

3C CH2 CH 2CH 2 CH C\

### OH

Empirical Formula: C,6Hi1Oa. Molecular Weight: 144. Melting Point:

- 83 C. Boiling Point: 22.6.9 C at 70anmhlg. Vapor Pressure: 0.03 inlHg at 2a C. Specific Gravity. 0.C077 (20120"C]. Solubility in Water 0.l% at -20'C (Ref 24, Union Carbide, 1933a).

Log Octanol/Watcr Partition Coefficient: 3 (estiwaited; 

### Ref. 11, Lyman
et al., 1932).

Description ofChemical: 2- Ethylhex:anoic acid is a mild-odored liquid. It is a weal. acid that in the presence ofa strong acid, will react v,ith

an alcohol to produce an ester (Ref.15, Morrison and Boyd, 1973].

Rationale forRecommendatio as I. Eposureinforation-A. Prodvction/use/disposal. The 1977 U.S manufacture/importation of 2- ethyLhe.:anoic acid, as listed In the public portion ofthe TSCA Inventory,

was 11.1-61 million pounr.. (Ref.7, EP.A 1932. The largest producer hsted in the Inventory has stated that itN current annual production range iG10-30 million pounds and that production is expected 

### to remain at this level in the fot re (Ref, 6, Eastman Kodak, 1933]. Other manufacturers have confirnmed additional current production and importation ofgreater than on- milliun pounds (Ref. 8, 3, and 2, File Chemica, 1933a; BASF 1933, American Hocchst, 1933).

2-jtVlhexanoiC acid is a chnCMUcl intermediate us.d pririqly in the mansffactura of2-etyIhe%..anoc metal soaps (ro. 9, File Chemical, 19Oi3b). T",e soaps are utilizd uyarmrily is promotris for curnig thermo-ct pvlyester 

### resins, as dners furceriman oiI.bocd paints, Lrdk, varnisheo, 

### and enamels, and as catalysts for polyurethane foams. Typically, the various soaps are added
to the unsaturated polyester re-in, paint.

or foain polyol at levels of less than one p.rcent (Ref.6, Fastman Nodal;, 1f33).

Esters cnd salts of2-cthylhexanoic acid have becin used in the paparahion of synthetic greazses and lobricants. Diesters of2-ethT'eanoic acid with triethylene glycol ortetraethylene glycol

are u-ed as thil,eners in lubricants for both low- and high-terimperatore applications (Ref.6, Fa,3iman Kodak, 

### 1m8).

The National Oc tupational Htaiard Survey lists 16,613 perzons as beinS potentially e;posed to 2-eth,)he.annic acid during 19;0 (Ref.10, P.1OSHI, 1983). Bet'ause vapors et the conopoand may irritate the eyes, no-we, nilJ'roat, and tha liquid mateaal causes snfficjnt rkin and eye irritation, wuo ers are urged to use protective cloth:%, eyewear and respir.Aor3 dtr- iw, b'i aling 

### (Ref.24 and 3, Union Carbide, 1333; Eastman Kodak, 19833). One manufacturer reported that trace amounts ofthe compound are release&d to the atmosphere during manufacture. Recommended disposal methods forthe compound during manufacture and inhouse use include incineration and treatment at an onsite wastewater treatment facility (Ref.6, Eastman lo .hk. 1 3]). Another manufacturer stated that its recommended method of waste disposal is incineration (Ref.2-1, Union Carbide, 1933a).

B..Etidence foreposure.Although 2- ethylhe:,anoic acid is not used m
consumer products, the 2- ethylhe:.anoate metal soaps are utilized in such products. Thus, general population exposure to the anionmav
occur. The compound also has been detected in leachate from a landfill m Oklahoma at 4.2mg/L (Ref.5, Dunlop et al., 1976).

H. Chemical fate mformation.No test datawtere foundpertamg to the transport and persistence of2- ethylhc'xanoic acid. Although rapid biodegratation ofthe chencal has been predicted, its presence in leachate from

a landfill does not support this position.

IL.Bio!oyraleffe 'tsof concernto humanheafth-A.Acute to.xiciti. The oral !,D: of2.ethylhexanoic amd in rats

w.as 3 g/kg and the dermal LDo in 

### rabbilt was 6.3 ml/kg (Ref. 2-3. Smvth and Carpenter. 191). The dermal IU-) in guinea p7s vrith a 4-day contact period

vas 6.3 f,. kg (Ref.25, Union Carbide, 1933b). The dermal LDzo inginea pigs ond rabbits was reported ao 5,6-0 mg[kg and 1,.-9 mg/kg, respectively (Ref.4, Clayton and Clayton, 1932). The inhalation LC>3 in 

### guinea pigs was determined tobe greater than413 ppm/6 hours 

### (Ref.6, Eastman I dT, Z'3. Undiluted 2-ethrlhexanoic acid (0.01 ml) caused corel necrosis ofthe rabbit eye. The undiluted compound and 10 percent solutions in

### acetone caused skn erytherna in rabbits (Ref.25,Union Carbide, 19mb).

B. Teratoemcirf/embrvotloxcity. N,o information was found regardin- tl'e teratogenicity orembryotoicitv of2- ethylhexanic acid.

C.LA.tabolicmardtoxjcokn .?cs studks. No information wasfound on the metabolism or toxico!anctics of 2- ethylheannc acid. However, 2- ethylhe7:ar'oxc acid was one ofthe initial metabolltes identified when 2- ethylc2arnol was administered o7rlly to rats (Ref. 1, Albro, 1975].

D. Gcotordtv.2-Ethy.ie,'meaic acid has bean select ?d for mutagenicity testing in the Salmonellaiicrosomal assay and forin-vitro cytoganets testingin Chineze hamster ouary cel!s (Rex. 2, INIP 1934). No other

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices

information was found on genotoxicity testing of this compound. However, 13 compounds containing the 2-ethylhexyl moiety were negative in the Salmonella assay both with-and without metabolic activation (ReL 19, NTP 1983a).

E. Carcnogenicity. No information
was found on the carcinogenicity of2- ethylhexanoic acid. To date, NTPhas tested four compounds containing the 2- ethylhexyl moiety for carcinogenicity and other chronic toxic effects in rats and mice, namely, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), tris(2- ethylhexyl)phosphate, and 2-ethylhexyl sulfate (Refs. 17 18, 20, and 21, NTP 1982a; NTP 1982b; NTP 1983b; NTP 1983c). The administration ofall four compounds correlated with increased

occurrences of hepatocellular tumors, principally carcinomas, infemale mice. DEHA and DEHP also induced hepatocellular tumors in male rmce, while DEHP caused hepatocellular tumors in female mice and rats. These results suggest that compounds containing the 2-ethylhexyl moiety may have some carciiogemc potential for the

mouse liver (Ref. 10, Kluwe, 1984).

F. Othereffects.In a chemical class study, DEHP DEHA, di(2-ethylhexyl)- sebacate, 2-ethylhexyl alcohol, 2- ethylhexanoic acid, and, to alesser extent, 2-ethylhexyl aldehyde induced
an increase in hepatic peroxisomes and peroxisome-associated enzymes, whereas adipic acid, diethyl phthalate, hexanol, hexyl aldehyde and hexanoic acid did not (Ref.13, 

### Moody and Reddy, 1978]. Subsequent research on all ofthe above chemicals except di(2- ethylhexyl)sebacate demonstrated that those compounds that induced peroxisomal proliferation also produced

a decrease m serum triglyceride and cholesterol concentrations inrats (Ref. 14, Moody and Reddy, 1982]. These data indicate that the 2-ethylhexyl moiety may be important in inducing these effects.

G. Rationale forhealtheffects recommendations. The potential exists for occupational exposure to 2- ethylhexanoic acid. General population exposure to the 2-ethylhexanoate anion may occur from the use ofproducts contaimng 2-ethylhexanoate metal soaps. Suspicion exists as to the potential toxicity of the 2-ethylhexyl moiety on the basis ofresults from carcinogenicity studies offour 2- 

### ethylhexyl compounds and of the ability ofa group of2-ethylliexyl compounds, including 2-ethylhexanoic acid, to induce peroxisomal proliferation and hypolipidemia in rats.Accordingly, chronic studies including oncogemcity studies in rats and mice are recommended for2-ethylhexanoic acid.

IV Ecologicaleffects. Compounds of similar structure have been found to have low to moderate toxicity. 2- Ethylhexanoic acid is not expected tobe toxic to aquatic organisms at the levels at which it is likely to occurin the environment. Hence tests for ecological effects are not recommended.
References

(1)Albro P.W. 1975. The metabolism of2- ethylhexanol inrats. Xenobiotica 5:625-636.

(2] American Hoechst. 1983. Unpublished information on the importation of 2- ethylhexanoic acid provided by N. M. Scarpa, American Hoechst Corp. September 22,1983.

(3)BASF. 1983. Unpublished information on the importation of2-ehylhexanoic acid provided byM. Klosowski, BASF Wyandotte Corp. August 30,1983.

(4) Clayton G. D., Clayton F.E. (ed.). 1982. Patty'sIndustral HygieneandToxicology, 3rdrevised edition, Vol. 1C.New York, New York: Wiley-Interscience. pp. 4925-4926.

(5)DunlopW. J., Shew D. C., Robertson J. M., Toussaint C.R. 1976. Organic pollutants contributed togroundwater by a landfill. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/9-76- 

### 004, Gas and Leachate fromLandfills Formation, Collection, and Treatment. pp 96- 110.

(6) Eastman Kodak. 1983. Unpublished information on the production, use, occupational exposure, environmental 

### releases, and toxicity of2-ethylhexanoic acid submitted by D. W.Kreh, Eastman Chemicals Division,Eastman Kodak Co. September 16, 1983.

(7)EPA. 1982. TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (publicportion). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

(8) File Chemical. 1983a. Unpublished information on the importation of2- ethylhexanoic acid subnitted by J. A. Saluzzi, 

### File Chemical, Inc. August 5.1933.

(9) File Chemical. 1983b. Unpublished information on the importation and use of2- ethylhexanoic acid provided by B.Higgins, 

### File Chemical, Inc. July 25,1983.

(10) KluweW. 1984. Comparative chronic toxicities and carcinogemc potentials offour 2-ethylhexyl-containing compounds in rats and mice. Prepublication manuscript.

(11)Lyman W.J., Reehl W.F., Rosenblatt D. H. 1982. Handbook ofChemical Property Estimation Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Chapter 1.

(12) Mobil Chemical. 1983. Unpublished information on the production of2- ethylhexanoic acid provided by W. R. Smithey,Mobil Chemical Corp. July 28,1983.

(13)Moody D. E., Reddy 

### J. K. 1978. Hepatic peroxisome (microbody) proliferation in rats fed plasticizers and related compounds. 

### Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 45:497-504.

(14) Moody D. E., Reddy, 

### J.K. 1982. Serum triglyceride and cholesterol contents in male rats receiving diets containing plasticizers and analogues ofthe ester 2-ethylhexanol. 

### Toxicol. Lett. 10:273-249. (15) Momson R. T., Boyd R. N, 1973, Organic Chemistry, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., p. 580.

(16)NIOSH. 1983. National Occupational Hazard Survey. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

(17)NTP 1982a. Carcinogenesis Bloassay ofDi(2-ethylhexyl)adipate. F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (FeedStudy). TR-212, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.

(18) NTP. 1982b. Carcinogenesis Bloassay ofDi(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate InF344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (FeedStudy). TR-217, National Toxicology Progiam, Research Triangle Park, NC.

(19) NTP 1983a. Memorandum entitled "Nomination ofAdditional Compounds Containing the 2-Ethylhexyl Moiety forNTP Mutagenicity Testing" from D. A. Canter to Members, NTP Chemical Evaluation Committee, National Toxicology Program. May 2, 1933.

(20) NTP 1983b. Carcinogeneiio studies of sodium 2-ethylhexyl sulfate in F3/IN rats and B6C3F1 mice (Feed Study). TR-250, National Toxicology Program. Rocarch Triangle Park, NC. Final report in preparation.

(21) NTP 1983c. Toxicity and Carcinogenicity ofTris(2- ethylhexyl)phosphate in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Study). National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. Final report in preparation.

,(22) NTP 1984. NTP Results Report, Results and Status Information on all NTP Chemicals, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.

(23) Smyth, H. F., Jr., Carpenter C. P. 1944, The place ofthe range-finding test in the industrial laboratory. J.Ind. Hyg. Toxicol, 26:269-273.

(24) Union Carbide, 1983a. Data from Product Bulletin on Organic Acids (1974) and Material Safety Data Sheet on 2- ethylhexanoic acid (1978 submitted by G. P Bigelow, Umon Carbide Corp. October 14, 1983.

(25) Union Carbide. 1983b. Unpublished summary toxicity data submitted by T. R. Tyler, Union Carbide Corp. September 20, 1983.

2.2.d Isopropylblphenyls Summaryofrecommendedstudies,It is recommended that the mixed iso-mers ofisopropylbiphenyl (1PBP) and the mixed isomers ofdiisopropylbiphenyl (DIPBP) be tested for the following:

A. Chemical Fate: Water 

### solubility Octanol/water partition coefficient Persistence Soil mobility
B. Health Effects: Chronic toxicity, 

### with emphasis on

neurotoxic and kidney effects C. Ecological Effects: 

### Acute and.chronic toxicity to fish,

aquatic invertebrates, and algae Bioconcentraton If IPBP and DIPBP can not be isolated and tested separately, then tests with I v I 

### 22400

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuep day, M;v 29. 1934 / Notices

twto commercial mixtures should be performed: one high in IPBP and one high n DIPBP Physical andChemical Information
CAS Number. Isopropylblphenyl: 25640-78-2 Dilsopropylbiphenyl: 62099-90-1 

### Synonyms: IsopropylbiphenylkIPBP-1 .'



### Biphenyl, (1-methylethyl)-(O CIJ Diisopropylbiphenyl: DIPBP-1.' Biphenyl, ar,ar'.bis(1-mehylethylj- (9 CI) Structural Formula:



### I 

# H, 3 

# ),CH] CH(Hj2Y

ForIPBP:x=I, y=O ForDIPBP"x=1, y=l or %=2, y=O 

### Empirical Formula: Isopropylbipheny.l:C,.Ht 0 

### Diisopropy lbrphenvhCviH Molecular Weight: lspropvlbiphenyl19S DiisoprqpvlbphenvI: 233 Meling Pdint: No data were found on the pure compounds.

Boiling Point: No data were found on the pure compounds.

VaporPressure: No data were found

on the pure compounds.

Specific Gravity: No data were found

on the pure compounds.

Water Solubility: No data were found

on the pure compounds.

Log/Octanol Water Partition Coefficient:

lsqpropvlNphenvI: 5.34 (estim3ted; ReL 14, Peterman, 1983] Diisopropylbiphenyl: 6.64 (estimated; Ref. 14, Peterman. 1933) Available data on thephyscial and chemical properties ofvanous commercial mixtures ofIPBP and DIPBP

are presented in the follorang Table 1. 224,1,

### 22402 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices

Table 1--Physical and Chemical Properties. of Commercial Mixtures

Conbaining Isopropylbiphenyls and Diisoproyjbiphenyls

Compound



### Property CGa Wemcol ® 

### SURE SOLb-250

% Isopropylbiphenyl

% Dilsopropylbiphenyl > 94



### < 6 98 9 b



### <1 1 

### > 94 c



### < 6



### Specific gravity 0 98-0 99

Log P

Water solubility

Vapor pressure

Melting point

Boiling point -- 

### 10 mg/Lb, 0 051 mg/Le

__ 5x10- 4 

### "mm~igd

-- 

# < -55C b 

### 0 01 mmllgf

>2330 C

aRef 19, Sybron, 1982

bRef 23, Westinghouse, 1977

cRef 8, Koch, 1982

dEstimated (Ref 1, Addison, 1983)

eMeasured (Ref 13, Ozburn et al
, 1980)
fRef, 18, Sun, 1977



### Rationale forRecommendations
I.Exposureinformation-A. Production/use/disposal. Isopropylbiphenyls (IPBPs) and diisopropylbiphenyls (DIPBPs) are produced simultaneously and are not separated for commercial purposes (Refs. 8, 9, Koch, 1982, 1983). Both compounds are sold as mixtures containing varying ratios ofIPBP and DIPBP The commercial mixtures 

### generally contain also small amounts (<1%) 

### oftriisopropylbiphenyls.

Information on the current uses and production of commercial mixtures containing IPBP and DIPBP is presented in the following Table 2. 

### 0 9 8 8 

### b

5 23 d



### , 7 0e 

### 0 990u

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices



### Table 2--Data on Current Production and Uses of Commercial Mixtures

Containing Isopropylbipheyls and Diisopropylbiphenyls a



### Product Manufacturer Production Percent Use (million lb 

## ) IPBP

SURE SOL®-250 Koch 3-4 >94 Dielectric fluid

CG Sybron 0 84-8 4 >94 Dielectric fluid

PG Sybron >75 Carbonless copy

paper 0 36-36

MPG Sybron 0 >72 5 Carbonless copy

paper

aRefs 8 and 19, Koch, 1982, Sybron, 1982

Mixtures ofIPBP and DIPBP containing highpercentages ofIPBP (>94 percent) are used as dielectric fluids m capacitors (Refs. 8 and 19, Koch, 1982; Sybron, 1982), 

### whereas mixtures containing less IPBP are normallyused as dye solvents in 

### the manufacture ofcarbonless copy paper (Ref. 19, Sybron, 1982]. The dye solvent constitutes approximately 3percent of the paper's weight.Tulp et al. (Ref.21, 1978] analyzed a sample ofthe commercial productWemcolO a capacitor fluid, and found that it contained 60.3percent 3- 

### isopropylbiphenyl and 38.6 percent 4- isopropylbiphenyl, with the remainder containing fourisomers of diisopropylbiphenyl.

SURE SOLO-250 is produced in a 

### closed system (Ref. 8,Koch, 1982). No information was available on the number ofworkers exposed toIPBP and DIPBP during themanufacturing process.

The potential forwidespread human exposure to IPBP andDIPBP exists through theiruse in 

### carbonless copy paper.IPBP and DIPBP are expected to enter the environment via wastewaters from plants manufacturing the mixtures, from plants making carbonless copy paper,from paper mills using recycled paper,from capacitor leakage, and from landfills where capacitor3 and carbonless copy paper have been discarded. Leaching fromlandfills is also a potential source ofhuman exposure through groundwater contamination.

B.Evidenceforexposure.There is no direct evidence ofhuman exposure to the compounds. However, two teams of investigators have reported health complaints by office workers using carbonless copy paper containing the compounds (Refs. 10 and 7 Levy and Hanoa, 1982; Kleinman and Horstmnsn, 1982). Peterman (Ref. 14,1983) investigated the distribution ofPCB substitutes in 

### the Fox Riversystem of Wisconsin. He foundm-IPBP andp-IPBP in 

### the wastewater discharge ofa demkmg-recyclxg papermill that used mixed waste paper.He also detected the compounds in 

### walleyed pike collected in 

### the lowerFox Riverdownstream from the discharge site.

A monitoring study performed by the State ofWisconsin (Ref 15, St.Amant et al., 1983) during 1978-81 revealed the presence ofIPBP in 

### fish from several other locations in Green Bay and Sturgeon Bay. IL Chemwcafate mformation-A. Transport. Th3high log octanol/water partition coefficients (behveen 5 and 7) 

### andthe low water solubilities indicate that these compounds are lilely to sorb strongly to sediment and suspended matter in receiving waters. Suspended matter can be transported over large distances. There is insufficient information to determine the extent that these compounds are transported. As stated above, lPBPwas found in fish downstream from the point ofdischarge.



### B.Persistence. Westinghouse (Ref.23, 1977] pzrformed tests with a mucture containing 98.9 percent IPBP ffemcol]). In a river die-away study using river water and sediment, greater than E0 percent ofthe mrture (concentration unspecified) was biodegraded in48 hours. In a sewage sludge test, E9 percent biodegradation occurred in 24 hours and 100percent in less than one week. These data suggest facile degradation. However, the presence of
IPBP in the discharge ofthe paper mill after wastewater treatment and in fish several miles away indicates either that IPBP does not readily biodegrade or that at high concentrations (as are likely to bepresent in the recycling mill wastewater] bacteria cannot degrade 

### 2240

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday. May 29. 1984 / Notices

IPBP fast enough to remove it entirely from the effluent.

C. Rationale forchemicalfate recommendations. Chemical fate tests to determine the potential for transport and persistence within the aquatic environment should be performed.

III.Biological effects ofconcern to human health-A.Toxicokineticsand metabolism.Sullivan et al. (Refs. 16 and 17 1977 1978) presented excretion studies indicating that 4-IPBP is nearly completely absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract ofthe rat and that 48 hours after administration ofa single oral dose or intraperitoneal dose of 4CIPBP more than 80 percent ofthe radioactivity was eliminated. The authors noted that 4-IPBP and/or its metabolites were sequestered in fatty tissues and were then released at slower rates into the bloodstream for ultimate metabolism and elimination. The same authors reported on biotransformation of4-IPBP indicating hydroxylation of the benzene ring and oxidative reactions ofthe isopropyl chain.

B. Mutagencity.Cline and McMahon (Ref. 5,1977) and McMahon et al. (Ref. 12, 1979) studied the mutagenic activity of4-IPBP in 10 microbial strains over a 10,000-fold concentration gradient with and without metabolic activation and it

was found to be inactive. Other studies (Ref. 11, Litton Bionetics, 1976) demonstrated no mutagenic activity in assays conducted either in the presence or absence ofa liver-activation system.

C. Short-term(acute)effects. Cannon (Ref.3, 1975a) and Westinghouse (Ref. 23, 1977) reported acute oral LDo 0 values for IPBP in rats of4.7 and 8.5 g/kg, respectively. During toxicity studies in rats and dogs, 4-IPBP produced erosions and ulcerations ofthe upper gastrointestinal mucosa, degenerative changes in kidney tubules, and papillary necrosis (Ref. 20, Todd et al., 1975).

Sullivan et al. (Ref. 17 1978) performed 90-day toxicity studies with IPBP and noted nephrotoxicity, renal lesions, and small calculi in the renal pelvis and bladder.

When IPBP was administered orally to rats at 800 mg/kg/day for 10-15 days, it caused neutropenia, lymphocytosis, hypoprotememia, dystrophy of the liver and kidneys, hyperplasia in the spleen, and hypertrophy in myocardial fibers (Ref. 22, Volodchenko et al., 1973).

D. Skin absorption andirritation studies.Several studies showing IPBP to be a skin irritant have been reported (Refs. 6, 23, and 4, Haley et al., 1959; -Westinghouse, 1977- Cannon 1975b). E. Carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, embryotoxicity,and fetotoxicity.No information was found. 

### F Observations in humans.Levy and Hanoa (Ref. 10, 1982) reported that office workers complained ofan unpleasant odor from a new set ofselfcopying paper forms. The-workers complained also ofheadaches, irritation, fatigue, and redness ofthe eyes and face. The odor was attributed to the release ofIPBP solvent from the sheets, which were impregnated with both color former and developer on the front and capsules with color former on the back. The complaints gradually disappeared after the suspect forms were replaced with forms from another manufacturer.

Kleinman and Horstman (Ref.7 1982) presented a preliminary report ofhealth complaints attributed to the use of carbonless copy paper containing IPBP Ofthe exposed office workers on the campus ofthe University ofWashington who responded to a questionnaire, 26.8 percent reported health problems associated with the use of carbonless copy paper and 14.0 percent reported
some health effects but were uncertain if these effects were related to the use of the paper.The authors reported a stastisically significant association between thenumber ofcomplaints and the amount ofpaper used.

G. Rationale forhealtheffects recommendations. There is a potential for dermal exposure to IPBP and DIPBP particularly as a result of their use in carbonless copy paper. Also there is a potential forhuman exposure through consumption offish and drinking water contaminated with the compounds. In view ofreports ofadverse health effects following exposure ofoffice workers to copy paper containing the compounds, adverse effects in laboratory animals, and lack ofchronic toxicity data, it is recommended that 2-year chronic toxicity testing be undertaken, with emphasis on evaluating funther neurotoxic and kidney effects.

IV Ecologicaleffects of concern-A. Short-term(acute)effects. According to Westinghouse (Ref. 23,1977), the 96-hour LCz values of WemcolO (98.9%IPBP) for bluegills,andrainbow trout are 4.0 and 2.5 mg/L. respectively. These tests were static tests, and the concentrations of IPBP were not measured m the test waters. These4LCso values substantially exceed the reported water solubility limit of0.051 mg/L (Ref. 13, Ozburn et al., 1980).

Ozburn et al. (Ref.13,1980) performed 96-hour flow-through toxicity tests with Wemcolu and flagfish (Jordanella floridae).An acetone carrier was used to help solubilize the compound in the test water. The LCso values for young and adult fish based on measured test concentrations ofIPBP were 0.28mg/L and greater than 0.75 mg/L, respectively. These values also exceed the reported solubility limit in water. Therefore, the aquatic toxicity data should be confirmed.

B. Long-term (chronic) effects. Ozburn etal. (Ref.13, 1980) performed a 31-day test to investigate the potential effects of WemcolO on reproduction offlagfish. After spawning had begun in all test aquaria, five concentrations ofWemcolO

were introduced into the test aquaria. After exposure during a 21-day spawning period, fry survival was investigated over an additional 10-day exposure period. Exposure to WemcoP ® had an effect on the adult fish: three of

seven died at the 0.42 mg/L exposure level, and one each died at the 0.2 and 0.1 mg/L concentrations, respectively. Although there were apparently no adverse effects on reproduction, fry survival was reduced at a measured IPBP concentration of0.43 mg/L.

C. Bioconcentration and fcod-chain transport. Ozburn et al. (Ref,13, 1980) performed a 28-day uptake, 14-day depuration bioconcentration test with flagfish. Fish were exposed to mean IPBP concentrations of3.5 and 24.1 jg/L, Using the BIOFAC computer program developed by Blau and Agin (Ref. 2, -1978), the bioconcentration factors for the low and high exposures were estimated to be 2,896 and 10,790, respectively. The times to 90 percent steady-state for the low and high exposures were 9.6 and 5.3 days, respectively. The time to 50 percent clearance at both exposure levels was less than 3 days.

D. Rationale forecologicaleffecto recommendations. IPBP and DIPBP have been detected in the aquatic environment. Through their continued

use in carbonless copy paper and as a dielectric fluid, there remains a potential for environmental release.

No data were found on the toxicity of DIPBP and the aqyiatic toxicity data for IPBP need confirmation. The inconsistency in the toxicity data with regard to reported solubility indicates that acute toxicity values may be lower than presently measured, The data indicate that IPBP is toxic to fish at concentrations ofless than 1 mg/L. There are no data on the effects ofthe compound on aquatic invertebrates such

as Daphnia magna.Because ofthe suspected toxicity at less than I mg/L and the high bioconcentration potential of these compounds, chronic toxicity tests should be performed below the limits of solubility. An early life-stage test with at least one fish (rainbow trout) and a life-cycle test with at least

one invertebrate (Daphnia magna) I 

### 22404

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1934 / Notices

should be performed. Bioconcentration tests with fish should also be performed.

Because ofthe uncertainties concerning the fate and persistence of these compounds, laboratory microcosm studies arerecommended. These studies would determine distribution ofthe compounds in 

### test animals, sediment, and water column ofthe test system and would measure the effects on benthic and water-column species.
References

{1) Addison R. F. 1983 PCB replacements in dielectric fluids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17(10)-486-494.

(2)Blau G. E., Agin G. L 1978.A users manual for BIOFAC: a computer program for characterizing therates ofuptake and clearance ofchemicals inaquatic organisms. The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI.

(3)Cannon. 1975a.The acute oral toxicity study ofX489-17B in rats. Finalreport submitted to Sun Oil Co., Marcus Hook, PA, by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., Reading, PA. February 19,1975.

(4) Cannon. 1975b.The effects ofX489-17B

on abraded and nonabraded skin ofNew Zealand albino rabbits.Final report submitted to Sun Oil Co., Marcus Hook, PA. by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., Reading, PA. February 10,1875.

(5)Cline JC,McMahon RE. 1977. Detection 

### ofchemical mutagens. Use ofconcentration gradient plates in ahigh capacity screen. Res. Commun. Chen. Pathol. Pharmacol. 16[3):523-533.

(6)Haley T.J., Detrick L. E., Komesu N., Williams P., Upham H.C., Baurmash L.1959. Toxicologic studies onpolyphenyl compounds used as atomic reactor moderator-coolants. Toxicol. Appl. PharmacoL 1:515-523.

(7) Kleinman G.D., Horstman S.W. 1982. Health complaints attributed to the use of carbonless copy paper (a preliminaryreport). Am.Ind.Hyg. Assoc.

.43(6):432-435.

(8)

Koch. 1982. Unpublished information submitted to ITCby Dale F.Janes. Koch Refining Co. June 16,1982.

(9) Koch. 1983. Unpublished information submitted to ITC by DaleF. Janes andDan Hawkinson, Koch Refining Co. October 11 and 14.1983, respectively.

(10] Levy F., Hanoa R.1982.Selfcopymg paper.A cause ofhealth complaints? Tidsskr. Nor.Laegeforen. 102(7).435, 442-444. Abstract.

(11)Litton Bionetics. 1976. Mutagemucity evaluation ofSUN X-489-17 experimental 

### fiud.Finalreport submittedto Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, Marcus Hook,PA. byLitton Bionetics, Inc., Kensington. MD. June 22,1976.

(12)McMahon R. E., Cline 

### J.C., Thompson C. Z. 1979. Assay of855 test chemicals'in ten tester strams using a new modification of the Ames test forbacterial mutagens. Cancer Res. 39:682-683.

(13) Ozbum G.W., Smith A. D., Orr D.E. 1980. Bioaccumulation rates, acute and chronic effects ofnew dielectric fluid products on fish. Summary report for Provincial Lottery Project No. 77-003-32. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 36 pp. (14) Peterman P.HL 1983. Polychlonnated biphenyl (PCB) substitute compounds in the Fox River systcnu their identification and distribution. M. S. thesis. Univ. ofWisconsin. Madison, WL 298 pp.

(15) St. Amant J.R. Parco M. E., Sheffy T. B. 1983. Final report en the toxic substances survey ofLake Miclugan. Superior, and tributary streams. Wisconsin Dcpartment of Natural Resources, Madison. WL 31 pp.

(16) Sullivan I-L R., McMahon R. E.. Hoffman D. G., Marshall F.J., Biihng R. E., Benslay D. N., Marshall W. S. 1977. Metabolite identification by GC-MS: spe.icl differences in the metabolic pattcrns of isopropylbiphenyL Mass. Spectrom. Drug Metab. [Proc. Int. Symp.]. pp. 31.43.

(17) Sullivan H. R., McMahon R. E. Hoffman D. G.. Marshall F.J.. Billings R. E.. Benslay D. N., Marshall W. S. 1978. Isopropylbiphenyl metabolism in the rat. Relationships between metabolism. pharmacology and toxicology. Xcnobiotica. 8[6:333-340.

(18) Sun. 1977. Sun Petroleum Products Company Material Safety Data Ehcet (dated 8/77) submitted toITC byDale F.Janes, Koch Refining Co. June 10, 1932.

(19) Sybron, 1982.Unpublished information submitted to ITCby Jack R. Siegelbaum. Sybron Corp.June 1,1982.

(20] ToddC. C.,Hoffman D. G, Bernhard N. R. 1975. Renal papillary necrosis produced by a metabolite ofa new antiinflammatory agent, 4-isopropylbiphenyl. Vet.Pathol. 12(1):69-70.

(21) Tup M.T.M., van Stem G. C.. Hutzmger 0. 1978. Environmental chemistry ofPCB-replacement compounds. VL Composition and metabolism of Wemcoll an isopropylbiphenyl formulation. Chemosphera (9:747-759.

(22) Volodchenko V.A., Sadokha E.R., Yaremenko V. D. 1973. Toxicity of isopropyldiphenyL Farmahol. TokeikoL (Kiev.). 8:183-184. Abstract.

(23) Westinghouse. 1977. Wemcol3 capacitor fluid. Information supplied by Westinghouse Distribution Apparatus Division in Bloomington. IN. Submitted to M. Greif, ITC,by Dale F.Jones, KochRefin 3 i. Co. June 16. 1982.

2.3.a 3,4-Dichlorobenzotrifluorde. Summaryofrecommended studies.It is recommended that 3,4- 

### dichlorobenzotrifluonde (DCBTFJ be tested for the followmng:

A. Chemical Fate: Water solubility Octanol/water partition coefficient Persistence Soil mobility B. Health Effects: Toxicolanetics Genoto-icity Subchronic effects Chronic effects including oncogencity C. Ecological Effects:
Acute and chronic tomcity to fish,

aquatic mvetebrates, and algae Bio concentration Physical andChemical Information
CAS Number:.328-84-7 Synonyms: 

### Benzene, 1,2-xdichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-(9 CI}. 3,4-Dichloro-a. a, a-trifluorotoluene. Structural Formula:



# CI ( 

## n 

## CF3

Empirical Formula: CH 3CUF 3

### . Molecular Weight: 215. Melting Point: -12* C. Boiling Point: 170' C. Vapor Pressure: 2mmHg at 250 C. Specific Gravity: 1.47 Solubility In water-23 mg/L (estimated; Ref.6, Lyman et al., 1982).

Log Octanol/Water Partition 

### ficient: 4.7 (estimated;Ref. 6. Lyman et al., 1932).

Description ofChencal: Clearliquid.

Rationale forRecommendations


### I.Ekxposureinformation-A. Production/use/disposal. The only
recent manufacturer of3,4- dichlorobenzotrifluoride (DCBTF) in the United States has reported that the companyno longer makes the compound 

### (Ref. 7 Occidental, 1983). However, U.S. importation ofthe compound in recent 

### years reached a peakofapproxmmately 3.5 million 

### pounds in 1981 as shown below (Refs. 13 and 14, USITC, 1980-.83]:

Yearandvolume imported

I.'-,. 143511



### The compound is used as a raw material in 

### the manufacture ofother cheucal intermediates. Itis estimated that inhalation exposure occurs to workers at an average concentration of less than 10 ppm (Ref.8,Rohin and Haas, 1982). Environmental releases to air and water from industrial processing have been reported (Ref.8, Rohin and Haas, 1982). In addition, disposal of tha compound in landfills is believed to be the source ofDCBTF found in river water (Ref. 2,Elder et al., 1981).



### B. Evidence forexposure.The compound has been found at 

### concentrations of0.02 to0.28 mg/kg m the edible portion offish sampled from the Niagara River (Ref. 16, Yurawecz, 1979). Elder et al. (Ref.2,1981] found DCBTFin water and/or sediment samples taken fromBloody Run Creek. 

### 224052406Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 104 

### I Tuesday. May 29. 1984 / Nntinenq



### The creek drains the Hyde Park landfill and flows into the Niagara River. The concentrations were estimated to be on the order of0.1 to 1ppb in the water and 0.5 to 2ppm in the sediment.

II.Chemicalfateinformation-A. Transport. The fact that DCBTF has been found in the creek that drains the Hyde Park landfill demonstrates that DCBTF can be transported inwater (Ref. 2,Elder et al., 1981).

B.Persistence. The compound is expected to persist in the aquatic environment as evidenced by the concentrations ofDCBTF found in Niagara River fish (Ref.16, Yurawecz, 1979). In an anaerobic biodegradation test with4-chlorobenzotrifluoride (pCBTF), a structural analog ofDCBTF, only 64 percent of the compound was converted togaseous products during a 59-day test (Ref. 3,EPA, 1984). Because of the volatility ofp-CBTF an attempt to determine aerobic biodegradation was unsuccessful; and in a 28-day test to determine photolysis, there was no degradation of this analog.

C. Rationale forchemical fate recommendations. Although DCBTF is expected topersist in the aquatic environment, information is needed to quantify the removal during wastewater treatment and the rates of biodegradation in receiving waters.

II1 Biologicaleffects of concernto humanhealth-A.Toxwokinetics (absorption, distribution, andexcretion). Notexicokinetic data have been found, but the estimated log P of4.7 suggests that the chemical may accumulate in body lipids.

B. Metabolism.No information was found.

C. Mutagenicity.No data on DCBTF
were found. The analog 4- chlorobenzotrifluoride was positive in
an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay (EUE cells) and in a sister-chromatid exchange study (Ref.4, Hooker, 1981).

D.Short-term (acute)effects.The acute LC;o (oral) and LDo (inhalation) studies with DCBTF in the ratresulted in values of1.15 g/kg and >2,000 pm (1- hour exposure),.respectively (Ref. 8, Rohm and Hass, 1982); a 24-hour skin painting study in the rabbit indicated an LDzo value of >5.0 g/kg.

E. Long-term(subchronic/chronic) effects. No information was found on neurotoxicity, behavioral toxicity, oncogencity, or other chronic effects. However, 90-day subchronic study of the analog p-CBTF demonstrated "renal tubular degeneration" m all male rats at doses of40, 150, and 500 mg/kg-and "centrilobular hypertrophy" in the liters ofmale and female rats (Ref.3,EPA 1984). F Reproduction.No information was found.

G. Teratogencity. No information was found.

H. Rationale forhealtheffects recommendations.'Thereis concern for the cumulative toxicological effects of long-term worker exposure to the compound. This concern is enhanced by the observed chronic ecological effects at low doses (see section IV). Also, bioaccumulation potential ofthe compound is cause for concern for human exposure through food-chain transport. Based on these concerns and the absence ofhealth-effects data, it is recommended that toxicokinetic, genotoxic, subchronic, and chronic studies, including oncogenicity studies, be conducted to evaluate the hazards of the compound.

IV Ecologicaleffects of concern-A. Short-term(acute)effects. No studies have been found on the acute toxicity of DCBTF. however, studies are available

onp-CBTF In static, acute toxicity tests with the bluegill, rainbow trout, and Daphnia magnathe LCQ,o values rahged from 12 to 13.5 mg/L forp-CBTF (Refs. 9. 10, and 11, UCES, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c).

B.Longterm (subchronic/chronic) effects. No data were found on DCBTF In a daphnid life-cycle test withp-CBTF effects were observed at concentrations much lower than those that caused acute effects. The maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC), based

on measured concentrations, ranged between 0.030 and 0.050 mg/L while the 21-day LC 3 - 0 was 0.071 mg/L (Ref.12, UCES, 1979d). The MATC from a 30-day early life-stage test with the fathead minnow was >0.54 and <1.40 mg/L (Ref.1, EG&G, Bionomics, 1981).

C. Bioconcentration and food-chain transport. No test data on DCBTF were found. Based upon an estimated log P of 4.7 the expected bioconcentration factor (BCF) using the equation ofVeith et al. (Ref. 15, 1979) would be 2000. The BCF forp-CBTF in bluegills was determined to be in the range of122 to 202 (Ref.3, EPA, 194). These values are in fairly good agreement with a BCF of279, estimated using the Veith et al. equation and a log P of3.7.

Based upon the expected persistence and bioconcentration potential of DCBTF food chain transport may occur.

D. Rationale forecological effects recommendations. No data have been found on the aquatic toxicity ofDCBTF However, because ofits higher-level of chlorination and higher estimated log P the compound is expected tobe more toxic than p-CBTF DCBTF has an estimated log P of4.7 as compared with

an estimated log P of 3.7 forp-CBTF Based upon the model developed by 

### Konneman (Ref. 5, 191), the estimated LCo in fish for DCBTF and P-CBTF would be 1.3 and 8.0 mg/L, respectively,

Since p-CBTF has been found to cause chronic effects on daphnids at 0.050 ing[ L,a concentration 240 times lower than the concentration that caused acute toxic effects, the major concern for DCBTF is its potential for chronic effects

on invertebrates at very low concentrations.

References

(1)EG&G, Bionomics. 1981. The toxicity of 

### parachlorobenzotrifluonde (p-CBTF) to fathead minnow. (Pimephales promelas) embryos and larvae. Report BW-81-3-838 to Hooker Specialty Chemical Division, Niagara Falls, NY.

(2)Elder V.A, Proctor B. L.. Hies R. A. 1981. Organic chemicals found near dump sites in Niagara Falls, NY. Environ. Scl. Technol. 15(10):1234-1242.

(3)

EPA. 1984. OPTS document, control no, 42026.

(4) Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp. 1981. Letter to Enviro Control, Inc. April 14. 1981.

(5) Konemann H. 1981. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in fish toxicity studies.Toxicology 19:209-221.

(6) Lyman W. J., Reehl W. F., Rosenblatt

. H. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill 

### Book Co.

(7)Occidental. 1983. Personal communication, J.Colson, Occidental Chemical Corp., with M. Greif, ITC, November 1,1983.

(8) Rohm and Haas. 1982. Information package on 3,4-dichlorobenzotrifluorlde (DCBTF) submitted toITC.July 29,1992.

(9) UCES. 1979a. Union Carbide Environmental Services. The acute toxicity of parachlorobenzotrifluoride to the bluegills 

### sunfishLepomismacrochnrus Rafinesque, UCES Project 1150-81-07.'Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp.,Niagara Fails, NY,

(10) UCES. 1979b. Union Carbide Environmental Services. The acute toxicity of parachlorobenzotrifluoride to the rainbow trout Salmo

### gairdnenri Richardson. UCES Project 11508-81-08. Hooker Chemicals and Plastic Corp., Niagara Falls,NY,

(11) UCES. 1979c. Union Carbide Environmental Services. The acute toxicity of parachlorobenzotrifluoride to the water flea Daphnia magna Status. UCES Project 11500-- 81-0. Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp., Niagara Falls, NY.

(12) UCES. 1979d. Union Carbide Environmental Services. Daphnia 

### inoiia chronic study testing parachlorobenzotrifluonde (97% active 

### ingredient). UCES Project 11500-18. Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp., Niagara Falls, NY.

(13) USITC. 1982. U.S. International Trade Commission. Imports ofBenzenold Chemicalb and Products, 1981. Publ.No. 1272, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC, p. 10.

(14) USITC. 1983. U.S. International Trade Commission. Imports ofBenzenoid Chemicals Feea Reise / Vol 49

..... 104 / Tuesda May 29 1984 /

........ 

### 22406

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 29, 1984 / Notices

andProducts, 1982. Fabl.No. 1401. 

### U.S. GovL PrntlngOfflce,Washington, DC.p.15.

(15)Veith G.D., DeFoeD. L.-Bergstedt B. V.1979. Measunng and estimating the bioconcentration factor ofchemicals in fish.J. Fish.Res.Board Can. 36:1040-1048.

(16] Yurawecz

. P. 1979. Gas-liquid chromatographic and mass spectrometer 

### identification ofchlorinated trifluorotoluene residues in NiagaraRiver fish.J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 62(1):36-40.
IFR Doc &1-14050Filed 5-25-K4 SAS am) BILUNG CODE 6560-50-1

[OPPE-FRL 2594-2] 

### Agency Information Collection Activities Under OFAB Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AcTor: Notice.

surar ARY: Section 3507(a)(2)(B) ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)requires the Agency to publish in 

### the Federal Register a notice ofproposed 

### information collection requests (ICRs) that have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget forreview. The ICR describes the nature of the solicitation and the expected inpact, and,where appropriate, includes the actual data collection instrument The following ICRs are available to the public forreview and comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORM.'ATION CONTACT. 

### DavidBowers; Office ofStandards and Regulations; Regulation and Information 

### Management Division (PM-223); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 382-27.42 orFTS382- 2742.
SUPPLEMENTARY iIJFORMATION: 

### HazardousWaste Programs

o 

### Title: Information Requirements for Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Facilities (EPA #0814).

Abstract: Tank and container facilities must obtain an operating permit fromEPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Respondents submit the

- 

### required information voluntarily or

when EPArequests PartB ofthe RCRA permit.TheAgency will usethe information to determine eligibility fora RCRA permit



### Respondents: Owners/operators of hazardous waste storage tank and 

### container facilities.

Comments on all parts ofthis notice shouldbe sentto: David Bowers [PM-223), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofStandards and R,'yulation

, Regulation and Information Manaement Division,491 M Strcc!, SW., Washington. D.C. C!/, and CarlosTellez, Office ofManoement

and Budget, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, New Erccutive Office Building (Room3228), 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, D.C. 20503.

Danel J.Fonno, Acting Director, Regulationand In

formation Mranagement Division.

WFR Dec. U4-1~0'7 Filed O5-r 45 ro3
BILULG CODEr cMr3- s.-

[OPTS-2110123; TSH-FRL 2535-31 

### Response to Citizen's Petition on Asbestos; Regional Public 

### rcetings

AGENCY: 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTIO: Response to Citizen's Petition; Notice ofRegional Public Meetings.
sur.r,,AnY: EPA willhold three regional public meetings as part ofits effort to gather data and hear arguments on current options forasbestos abatement in 

### schools and public buildings, pursuant to theEPA response to a citizen's petition. Those wishing to request time for statements at the meeting should contact the TSCA Assistance Office as indicated in "FOR

FURTHER inFORriATION corrrcr"' below. DATES: 

### Places and dates: The meetings will take place at the following locations and dates:. June 14,1984-Holiday Inn CivicCenter,

The GoldRoom, 50 8th Street, San Francisco, California June 20,1984-Dirlksen Building, 219

South Dearborn Street, Court Room 2525, Chicago, Illinois June 28,198'-Gardiner Auditorium,

State House, State Capitol Building, Beacon Street,Boston, Massachusetts2 All meetings willbegin at 9 a.m. and adjournby4:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORM'ATION CoNTrACr 

### Edward A. Klein, Director,TSCA Assistance Office (TS-799). Office of To.c Substances, Environmental Protection Agency,Rm. E-543, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Toll Free: (800-424-9065), InWashington, D.C.. (554--1404), Outside the USA: (Operator202-554-1404).
SUPPLEMEN1ARV INFORr.IATIOI: On 

### November 16,1933, the Service Employees International Unlon (SEIU petitioned EPA, under section 21 of TSCA, toinitiate rulemaling to require the abatement offriable asbestoscontaining mate.r-,s in 

### public and private

### ci atary 

### and secznAdary schezls. In aiddtian, thepat:tlon requezted r"kmaing concc=n the inspection and abatement offriable asbestos-containing materials in public and commercial buildings.

The specific points of thepetition submitted by the SEIU are enumerated below:

1. Establish standards fordetermining when friable asbestos-containing materials in 

### schools are hazardous.

2.Establish requirements for corrective action when friable asbestoscontamm materials are determined to be hazardous.

3.Establish requirements for inspection and abatement offriable asbestos-containing materials in 

### public and commercial buildings.

4.Establish standards for the performance of abatement activities, mcluding standards for theprotection of persons performin suchactivities.

TheAgency granted thepetitioners requests as published in theFederal Register ofApril17,1934 (49 FR 15094). In granting the petition, theAgency agreed tohold apublic meeting on May 7,1934 to hear testinony from experts
on how EPA should modify the Asbestos-m-Schools program. This meeting provided an opportunity for industry unions, trade associations, public interest groups and other interested parties tofurnish information and express ther viewsorally on the details ofwhat the Agency should include in its rulemaling proposals. In response to a subsequent petition, the Agency is conducting three regional meetings on this topicto he held in 

### San Francisco, California, Chicago, Illinois and Boston, Massachusetts.

A copy of thepetition and allrelated information andthe administrative record in this proceeding are in

### Rm.E107 Environmental Protection Agency, 401M St.. SW., Washington D.C. 2040. Interested persons may,% vew or copy these materials between 9 a.m. and4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

Dated:

### Mv 21.1934. Ed-.inF.Tinsworth, Acting Director. Officeof ToxicSubstances.

IaI -i7ec rn-3DZAc 

### 22407